Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Removed dispute tag

No active discussion was happening regarding any disputes, so the dispute tag was removed. --ScienceApologist 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still totally disputed. A lack of discussion does make not disputes go away. Fixing the disputed text does. I'll make some comments a little later --Iantresman 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I appreciated your comments, but they didn't indicate that anything was "totally disputed". --ScienceApologist 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I say I don't agree with much of what's in this article. I am disputing it. It, therefore, is disputed. Right? Just because there is not an active discussion that does not mean the information contained herein is totally undisputed. I feel like Allen Iverson. We're disputing whether something is disputed or not. For God's sake. Jiminezwaldorf 20:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist and Iantresman have each been gone for months. Art LaPella 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter who is here, if Jiminezwaldorf disputes the article, then clearly it is disputed. It seems to me that the authors of the article do not know the difference between Plasma cosmology, Plasma Universe, and Klein's cosmology. A quick search shows that history section is not based on peer reviewed material out there,[1][2], and the section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" reads as original search as none of the citations appear to refer to Plasma Cosmology. Personally, I'd favor putting the article up for deletion, rather having one full of inaccuracies. --Applecola 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm explaining this article's long combative past, not trying to defend everything, and mostly I just clean up the proofreading after the revert warriors are done. The archives will show that in particular, the difference between plasma cosmology and Plasma Universe has been thoroughly and hotly debated. Art LaPella 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting the tag back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiminezwaldorf (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If there is a factual dispute, it needs to be mentioned here. Tagging is only appropriate if such a factual dispute can be documented. ScienceApologist 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My first reaction was that the dispute is indeed mentioned here. Iantresman, Jiminezwaldorf and Applecola have each disputed the article's accuracy, therefore it is disputed. "If an article links to this page, it is because someone is concerned that the article may be significantly inaccurate." (WP:AD) But it also says, "don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it". Thus WP:AD seems to ask the rebels to add the tag because they dispute the accuracy, and it asks ScienceApologist to remove the tag because he has verified the accuracy, in an endless loop. What else is new? Art LaPella 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"You should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."[3] --Applecola 10:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it says that. Does that mean you think that ScienceApologist should leave the NPOV dispute tag (not Template:Disputed) in place until you finally answer his requests for examples of bias in the article? Whether he should or not, it seems clear that examples are needed, assuming the objective is to move the discussion along. Once again, I agree that the article sounds more like ScienceApologist than like a plasma cosmology advocate, but see WP:Undue weight. Art LaPella 22:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a look at Undue weight, and see that it says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." But this article is not on "Cosmology", and does not compare different cosmologies. Undue weight continues: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them [.. and] must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". --Applecola 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me a group of people have taken ownership of this article, and there is no longer fairness in regards to it. I don't see the point in wrestling over it, really. They do this because they are afraid of the implications of plasma cosmology, and although that will continue, so will plasma cosmology continue to progress. Let me say this: science used to be the realm of openness and free thought, where ideas flowed freely and were welcomed, and valued. The church was the oppressor. Now, science (namely physics and cosmology) seems to have become a place of absolute scrutiny, and elitism, and oppression, where no ideas are welcomed, and some are even demonized. That says to me something. When there is no room in science for pseudoscience and fringe science there is no longer an environment of truth. History has consistently shown that things existing on the periphery intellectually often become common practice. So I'd ask the bullies here to reconsider what they're doing. It might be more symbolic than you realize. Jiminezwaldorf 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:CBALL ScienceApologist 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you sent me there. That was irrelevant to anything I said. Jiminezwaldorf 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. There are a million ideas out there generally considered to be crackpot, and Wikipedia doesn't try to predict which ones will someday be accepted. That's up to scientists, not us. Wikipedia:Verifiability Art LaPella 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about what should be included in this article. I was just making a basic statement, for this discussion page only. Does that make sense? Regardless of what Wikipedia does (I couldn't care less about the rules), plasma cosmology will continue to progress, and this article will undergo extreme editing. You're just grasping at straws. Peace. Jiminezwaldorf 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it makes sense, given your assumptions. (For what it's worth, there's another rule against it.) Art LaPella 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the tag may need to be put back on for a number of reasons. See the recently published book The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott (ISBN: 0977285111) for more details. Dmacgr 22 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology

I object to the use of "non-standard cosmology" for three reasons:

  • (1) I can find no citations to Plasma cosmology being described as a non-standard cosmology. There is one reference to Peratt describing "In this nonstandard picture, swirling streams of electrons and ions form filaments that span vast regions of space"; this is not the same as describing Plasma Cosmology as such.
  • (2) The term "non-standard cosmology" appears to be infrequently, and does not appear to have any standard definition, and is not the "opposite" of "Standard Cosmology", a proper noun.
  • (3) Some definitions of "non-standard" are value-negative.

I would like to describe "Standard Cosmology" as an alternative cosmology for these reasons:

  • (1) I can find several references of "Plasma Cosmology" being described as "alternative"
  • (2) I can find no references to the word "alternative" being used in a value-negative manner.

I an happy for "alternative cosmology" to link to the poorly-named article "non-standard cosmology" --Iantresman 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative cosmology is fine with me. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The current situation is that "Standard Cosmology" is the overwhelming consensus view, with theories that differ significantly hardly being given a glance. "Standard/non-standard" reflects this state, while "alternative" can be read as "one of several suggestions on a more or less equal footing". But, hey, I don't want to stir up trouble when Ian and Joshua can agree on something. (And Ian's arguments are not without merit either.) --Art Carlson 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
On further consideration, it seems right that we call it a "nonstandard cosmology" as the citations are pretty clear that this is what it is. I'll note too that Eric Lerner when he was editting here didn't have a problem with this wording either. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s

While Alfvén is generally credited with Plasma Cosmology in the 1960s, (eg. Kraugh, 1999), Alfvén and Arrhenius credit Kristian Birkeland in 1908 (See 1976, sec.15.2), and this is endorsed by Peratt (1995). --Iantresman 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmology as a subject didn't exist in 1908 because the Shapley-Curtis debate had not yet resolved the scale of the universe. --ScienceApologist 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To be clearer, we are writing this article in 2007 when the subject matter of cosmology is linked to scales that are larger than the galaxy. Since it is clear that Kristian Birkeland did not discuss such scales, stating that plasma cosmology began with Birkeland is inappropriate. Birkeland may have provided antecedent ideas to plasma cosmology (just as, for example, Heinrich Olbers provided the same for standard cosmology), but he did not present an argument for explaining the dynamics at the largest scales. That would be left to Alfven and Klein. --ScienceApologist 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cosmology as a term existed well before the Shapley-Curtis debate, and it is arguable whether the word Cosmology has identical meanings in Standard Cosmology and Plasma Cosmology. Birkeland wrote that:
"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space"
"This theory differs from all earlier theories in that it assumes the existence of a universal directing force of electromagnetic origin in addition to the force of gravitation, in order to explain the formation round the sun of planets -- which have almost circular orbits and are almost in the same plane -- of moons and rings about the planets, and of spiral and annular nebulae."[Ref]
  • To summarise, Birkeland writes that he considers (1) the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds (2) a universal electromagnetic forces (3) in addition to gravity, and, (4) its importance in the formation of spiral and annular nebulae.
  • Silly question: since it's out of context, the quote: "This theory differs from all earlier theories in that it assumes the existence of a universal directing force of electromagnetic origin in addition to the force of gravitation [...]".
  • Does it mean "universal" in terms of "at universal scale" (IE, large scale structure) or "universal" in terms of "to be considered in addition to gravity in all interactions, regardless of scale" (IE, simply a primary force in the realm of being more or less equal to gravity in the overall formative process of the universe)? Just wondering, since it lacked fuller context. Either way it seems to imply a heavy duty role in cosmological processes, yeah? Just some quick thoughts. As you were... Mgmirkin 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ie. Birkeland's theory parallels that of Plasma Cosmology.
  • But this is not the place to make the argument; Alfvén, Arrhenius and Peratt have already stated that they credit Birkeland with the seeds of the origin of Plasma Cosmology, regardless of whether you, me and them are correct or accurate. --Iantresman 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the term "cosmology" has been around for a long time and has come to mean many things. However, in the context of "plasma cosmology" it means exactly what this article says it means. Birkeland was not in the business of proposing alternative cosmological models. Crediting Birkeland for the seeds of the origin of plasma cosmology is akin to crediting Olbers with the seeds of the origin of standard cosmology. That doesn't mean that plasma cosmology began in 1908 any more than standard cosmology began in 1823. --ScienceApologist 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Peratt says otherwise: "The year 1996 marks the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology; its origins may be traced to the seminal research first published by Kristian Birkeland in 1896." (Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Peratt, A. L., Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 3-11.). *See also, Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology, Peratt, Anthony L., Sky and Telescope, volume 69, page 389
  • Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush,[4] also says otherwise in A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Stephen George Brush, Cambridge University, Press, ISBN 0521552141 (page 49)
  • Alfvén and Arrhenius say otherwise.
  • You and I do not have to agree with them, but they are all verifiable. --Iantresman 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, these sources do not address the fundamental issue. Peratt is talking about plasma astrophysics and cosmology, so we need a little crowbar to separate these points. Similarly, you didn't link to where Brush, Alfven, or Arrhenius distinguish between the foundational work of plasma astrophysics and the foundational work of plasma cosmology. While you yourself may not believe there is a distinction between the two subjects, we have been working at this article with a distinct separation between them. --ScienceApologist 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Plasma Cosmologists do necessarily separate cosmology and astrophysics since the same processes are involved. Recall that Plasma Cosmologists do not have a beginning of the Universe as do Big Bangers, so the same processes they see in, for example, the creation of galaxies, are the same processes that were seen billions of years ago, and are the same processes that will explain galaxy formation in billions of years time.
  • Peratt attributes the work of Birkeland to the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology (see quote above).
  • I provided a link to Alfvén and Arrhenius's comments on Birkeland above, in Evolution of the Solar System (1976), see section 15.2.
  • And Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, wrote about Birkeland's contribution to Alfvén's work in in A History of Modern Planetary Physics (1999) on page 49:
"One other theory must be noted because, though generally ignored in the decade after it was proposed, it was later recognized as a precursor of Alvén's cosmogony. Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), a Norwegian geophysicist, studied cathode ray discharges from magnetized globes in connection with the aurora and other solar-terrestrial electromagnetic phenomena. In 1912 he proposed that the Sun emits charged particles into space; some of them cluster into orbits determined by the solar magnetic field and eventually form planets"
  • I understand there are differences between cosmology and cosmogony, and the quote above focuses on planet formation, but Birkeland himself says that he is also applying his "universal force" to "spiral and annular nebulae." in his "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903", Section 2. Chapter VI: On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae (1908)
  • Alfvén, Arrhenius, Brush and Peratt all attribute the origins of Plasma Cosmology to Birkeland. --Iantresman 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Would it clutter up the intro too much to say "Plasma cosmology is an alternative cosmology that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces inherent to astrophysical plasma. It was originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s, although some of the ideas can be traced back to the work of Kristian Birkeland around the turn of the century. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas ..." --Art Carlson 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me, and I'll add some of the references I've provided earlier. --Iantresman 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep such a statement out of the lead as it is peripheral to the main points of the article regarding ambiplasma and the eventual falsification of the theory. Maybe putting it in the section which describes the history of the idea would be a good idea. -ScienceApologist 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That, of course, is the alternative. I think the antecedents of an idea are worth mentioning, but the intro is not usually the best place for them. If there is a history section (at least two or three sentences) later on, then Birkeland could wait till then. The third possibility is a footnote. --Art Carlson 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I put it in the Alfven/Klein cosmology section. --ScienceApologist 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Protoscience vs Fringe citations

  • ScienceApologist, you removed the Protoscience category tag because you were not aware of any reference to it.
  • You also added the Fringe Science tags, on the grounds that they are "generally considered fringe". Wikipedia requires verifcation, no hearsay. I am requesting a couple of citations, because I do not know anyone (who is verifiable) who considers the subject to be fringe. --Iantresman 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sour grapes and possible violation of WP:POINT. It is fringe because it is nonstandard. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't sour grapes me, and threaten me with violations.
  • Fringe is not synonymous with non-standard, and I do not agree with your personal categorisation. I would still like a citation please. --Iantresman 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Fringe science is defined. Do you have any evidence to show that this endeavor is not fringe? --ScienceApologist 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your edit requires your verification. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article".WP:V Burden of evidence --Iantresman 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the arbcom decision, topics generally considered as fitting a certain category are fine to categorize as such. You are wrong and this discussion is over unless you can find another Wikipedian who agrees with you. You continue to violate WP:POINT in defiance of your probation. Keep it up and I will report you. --ScienceApologist 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked for verification of some information, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. If the subject is generally considered fringe, then you'll have no problem coming up with citations that generally support this.
  • If the best that you can come up with is to (a) allege sour grapes, (b) threaten me with WP:POINT (c) threaten me with "defiance of your probation", then by all means report me.
  • I'm here to edit, and make sure that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". --Iantresman 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If this discussion is really about the category "fringe science" (and not about the category "protoscience", in a WP:POINTed way), then I don't understand your objection, Ian. Are you looking for a citation that refers to plasma cosmology explicitly as "fringe science"? I don't think that is required. From the first line of Fringe science,
Fringe science is a phrase used to describe
Do you think
  • that plasma cosmology is nonscientific,
  • that cosmology is not an established field, or
  • that plasma cosmology does not depart significantly from standard cosmology?
--Art Carlson 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I agree with the description that fringe science "departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories" (my emphasis). I can find no sources supporting this description. And the fringe science article also says that the term may be pejorative.
If you think you can improve the fringe science article, you should discuss that there. After a new consensus on the definition has been reached, then we can apply it here. --Art Carlson 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To substitute "Standard model" for "mainstream or orthodox theories" seems like bait-and switch to me. My understanding is that plasma cosmology stems specifically from STANDARD empirical observation of plasma behavior IN THE LAB, extrapolated to larger scales and to the cosmos, which is mostly composed of matter in the plasma state. Being directly extrapolated from well-founded plasma research seems to put it squarely into ORTHODOXY, in my view (insofar as it comes from ORTHODOX empirical research into plasmas). IE, plasma physics is a well-known, well-researched field (encompassing double-layers, various known stable plasma configurations, and instabilities under various exotic known conditions), and the ideas expressed in plasma cosmology come directly from well-known researchers in the field of plasma physics. In that regard, I don't believe that the "departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox" burden is met. But, maybe that's just me...? Mgmirkin 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To say that "if it doesn't match the standard model it's unorthodox" seems like a bit of an over-reaching statement? Or rather to say that the "standard model" is the only approach that can possibly be considered "orthodox" again seems like a stretch. Standard model is currently the most-widely-accepted, perhaps... But to say it's the only possible conclusion to be drawn from orthodox empirical physical laboratory research and applied to the heavens? Dubious. Mgmirkin 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Relax. We are not trying to deduce the truth here or even to do epistomology. 99+% of professional cosmologists believe that something close to the Standard Model is true, and less than 0.1% believe plasma cosmology has anything to add to that. That is a statement of sociology, not physics, and it is the reason that PC is accurately and neutrally described as fringe science. --Art Carlson 08:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the description of "Protoscience", could also be consistent with Plasma Cosmology, but as ScienceApologist pointed out, there is "no protoscience indicated in the sources."[5] Personally, I might like to add the Protoscience tag; but "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability".
  • At the very least we should be consistent with our assessment of category tags. So if the "Protoscience" tag is not suitable because ScienceApologist notes that it lacks sources, then by the same criteria, the "Fringe science" tag, and the farcical "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation", should be removed too. --Iantresman 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you agree, but I already said I don't think it is necessary to find a source that uses the exact phrase of a category. Conforming to the definition is enough. I agree we should be consistent, and I contend that plasma cosmology clearly fits the definition of fringe science, and probably does not fits the definition of protoscience (which unfortunately is not quite so clear). --Art Carlson 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We'll disagree on this issue, but I'll let it go. --Iantresman 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I claim that plasma cosmology--or, more accurately, the Plasma Universe (not limited to cosmology, but considering all astrophysical processes, down to the planetary scale)--does not depart from mainstream theories. You see, it all depends on what you call mainstream. There is no such thing as mainstream science; it's too compartmentalized for that. There is mainstream astrophysics, and there is mainstream plasma physics--and they do not agree with each other. The Plasma Universe is an intrinsic part of the plasma physics mainstream theories and is supported by experiment. The astrophysicists' claims of how plasma behaves fall apart the moment you step into a plasma lab. The pseudoscientific assertion that plasma can mechanically carry the magnetic field "frozen into" it is laughable. It is based on the __ideal__ magnetohydrodynamics developed by Alfven. Magnetic fields are indeed frozen in ideal plasma (which means that we assume it to be a perfect conductor). What astrophysicists don't seem to get, though, is __why__ magnetic fields are frozen. It's not because plasma "carries" them along. It's because ideal plasma cannot but follow the magnetic field lines. Even without considering real plasmas, numerous astrophysical papers published on the matter fall apart at the slightest scrutiny, as long as you know anything about plasma physics. Consider an article like this: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9911379v1
I have done a line-by-line of it elsewhere, but it would take a lot of space here. It deals with the magnetic breaking mechanism of star formation, the one referenced in the Wikipedia article as well. The fundamental problem is not in any single calculation but in the original assumption. The article postulates a magnetized accretion disk, made of plasma. Since the magnetic field is frozen into it (with endpoints in the star and in the disk), and since the different layers of the disk rotate at a different rate, the magnetic field lines would--according to that article--wrap around each other until reconnection occurs. The problem is in the existence of the accretion disk. What force could possibly move a slowly rotating plasma disk across the magnetic field lines--and keep moving it? The charged particles will be immediately trapped and made to gyrate around the magnetic field lines. A simple calculation would show that, in order to escape this fate and be able to describe a circle of several AU in diameter, an electron must move at a speed approaching the speed of light (only about 10^(-10) of it apart). It's ridiculous. Do you often see the solar wind doing circles around the Sun? (By the way, send me more articles, please, so I could destroy them.)
The most astonishing of all: the mainstream astrophysicists must have forgotten that magnetic fields cannot exist without electric currents. Not all do, though; see, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507553 (way to go!).
The mainstream astrophysics has sunk into paper fantasies, unsupported by experiment. The name for this is pseudoscience. Appeals to "consensus" are worthless; opinions of thousands cannot survive a single contrary experiment--and we've got plenty. The Plasma Universe paradigm has the support of the mainstream plasma physics and anyone who ever dealt with real plasma in a lab (it is impossible to entertain the astrophysical notions of plasma once you do that). The only reason why most of them remain silent is because plasma physics deals not only with cosmic plasmas, but also with lasers, fusion, and other applications of plasma--they simply didn't put their mind to the behavior of plasma in space. But it's beginning to change. Plasma physics is a field much bigger than astrophysics would ever dream of growing to be. You've got one heck of a fight on your hands. It's coming. Real scientists will not keep silent forever.
For your education: http://plasma.lanl.gov
(And, by the way, stop claiming that plasma cosmology relies exclusively on "classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics." This is a cheap play on the word "classical" as denoting something backward. Plasma cosmology is well aware of special relativity and quantum electrodynamics; thank you very much.)
Leokor 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"The Plasma Universe paradigm has the support of the mainstream plasma physics and anyone who ever dealt with real plasma in a lab (it is impossible to entertain the astrophysical notions of plasma once you do that)." Methinks you haven't read User:Art Carlson. Art LaPella 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, Leokor, that we agree that plasma cosmology at least contradicts mainstream cosmology. That in itself might be enough to justify the category of "fringe science". You are saying that mainstream plasma physics contradicts mainstream cosmology. As someone who has worked in both fields, I haven't noticed the slightest sign of this feud. You will have to back this up with more than OR if you want to claim it as the basis of removing the fringe science tag. --Art Carlson 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather, I would say that much of the mainstream astrophysics (let's not limit ourselves to cosmology) treats plasma in a way totally at odds with the mainstream plasma physics, both theory and experiment. Heh, some astrophysicists still think that plasma is just a hot gas. Sir Eddington calculated the supposed temperature at the center of the Sun from the considerations of hydrodynamic equilibrium. Let me repeat: hydrodynamic equilibrium! (If you're a plasma physicist, you can fully appreciate the irony.) It's understandable for Eddington; he did it before the space age. But as soon as we stuck a toe into space, guess what we found? Streams of charged particles.
If one mainstream theory contradicts another mainstream theory, which one is fringe science?
This Wikipedia article need more work than just removing the "fringe" label, by the way. --Leokor 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing edits, not physics, but let me briefly address just one of your egregious misunderstandings. You ask "What force could possibly move a slowly rotating plasma disk across the magnetic field lines--and keep moving it?" The formulation is bit like asking what "force" moves the planets around the Sun (Angels pushing them?), when since Newton we know it takes a force to stop an object, not to keep it moving. In this case the answer is simply the E-cross-B drift (drift, not force). The idea that the gyroradius of the particles in the acretion disk has to be several AU in diameter is "laughable" to every mainstream plasma physicist. --Art Carlson 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then. What direction should the E vector point to in order to accomplish that? And how stable must it be in order to keep the accretion disk rotating around the star for an astronomically long time? Have we ever observed the solar wind make full circles around the Sun? In reality, most of the time the solar wind particles gyrate around the magnetic field lines, with the electric field being (roughly) co-directional with the magnetic field. This is not always the case, but you're asking me to believe that a perfect ExB drift can maintain itself over astronomical lengths of time, just in order to allow the accretion disk to form in precisely such a way as to please the astronomers? Oh, man. Are we to expect the magnetic field lines to loop around themselves, too?
As to the laughable idea, I totally agree. I laugh at that, too. --Leokor 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you would need something to keep the accretion disk moving that way, because they'd be moving against the Lorentz force--which, coincidentally, causes the ExB drift.
Lorentz force:
The drift velocity:
Substituting:
The particles won't drift without having a force exerted on them, with a component perpendicular to the magnetic field. If the accretion disk's rotation is indeed due to this drift, then it's the Lorentz force moving them. But don't forget that, in addition to this drift, there is a force acting on the particles. This force is perpendicular to the drift velocity vector and has a component perpendicular to the magnetic field. Assuming that the drift occurs in the plane of the accretion disk, this force will be lifting (or lowering) the particles from that plane. What you get is, essentially, a situation similar to the Earth's ring current. The charged particles gyrate around the magnetic field lines from pole to pole (where they get reflected by the magnetic field and begin gyrating the other way, toward the other pole), at the same time slowly drifting in a circle around the central body. But hey, this is no longer an accretion disk, isn't it?
This is what the guiding center approximation (discovered by Alfven, by the way) does in case of Earth. Stars have much more complex magnetic fields than Earth does. In the case of the Sun, the charged particles would go not from pole to pole, but mainly from the equator to a pole. Maybe that's what the solar wind actually does, turning around too far for us to notice. Or maybe we have even noticed it already, by means of the Voyager probes? Well then, thus we get exactly the solar electric circuit as proposed by Alfven.
Curious, isn't it, that, starting with a traditional astrophysical paper, with you trying to defend it, we have arrived at a Plasma Universe theory merely by developing your defense to its logical conclusions. Curious indeed. --Leokor 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Drew and Thornhill/Talbott links

Recently User:Soupdragon42 added links to Drew and Thornhill/Talbott. These web sites are full of errors, so that we cannot represent them as sources of further information. They may nonetheless be interesting and appropriate as descriptions of the sociological phenomenon of plasma cosmology advocates (outside of academic circles), but then we need to label them differently. In fact, if want to do that, we might need to add a short section to the text about these "religious" plasma cosmologists. Up to now we have represented only those advocates striving to be scientific. I'd like to hear from the other editors before taking action. --Art Carlson 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not aware of any sources that mention or describe "religious" plasma cosmologists, nor any sources that describe their Web sites as "full of errors".
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "advocates striving to be scientific". Does Wikipedia "strive to be scientific"? --Iantresman 11:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Art, the Velikovskian advocates jump on Alfven's bandwagon, but are themselves promoting their own versions of the "electric universe". Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article. Likewise, personal websites such as thunderbolts.info do not belong linked here. --ScienceApologist 13:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, please provide a source, any source, that suggests that Scott is an advocate of Velikovsky. --Iantresman 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are these websites "full of errors" or filled with contary facts and opinions to those accepted by consensus science as "generally acceptable"? As a newcomer, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or disrespectful, but the tone here strikes me as a bit arrogant and not quite so interested in neutrality and the citing of non-original research/further info sources so much as trying to protect readers of the encyclopedia from alternate viewpoints. Religious plasma cosmologists? Wow, that's a new (ad hominem?) one. The suggestion to re-classify the Thornhill/Talbot sources comes across as a tad condescending. Just my own (non-professional) opinion of how it's sounding. Ninedragons 06:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are many statements on these web sites that are not simply contrarian but are wrong. For present purposes, let's say there are many statements that would not meet Wikipedia's standards of being attributable to a reliable source and representing a significant minority viewpoint. I strongly support Wikipedia's policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. After you have been around awhile, if you find that I am not being true to that goal, then please hit me upside the head.
I have made some observations that lead me to suspect that some advocates of plasma cosmology see their beliefs in a way that can be reasonably described as "religious". I do not mean that to be pejorative. It is, of course, important to distinguish between scientific arguments and faith-based arguments. My evidence does not currently rise above Wikipedia standards of Wikipedia:No original research. In fact, it is more speculation than research. I was looking for a way that we could expose the readers to these alternative viewpoints without breaking the ground rules. As you see, I wasn't able to find a convincing one.
--Art Carlson 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I appreciate your integrity. As a long, long term *user* (complete newbie to editing, tho') of Wiki I, too, appreciate the policies. Semantics can be troubling, I know. You see, where you may be sensing religious fervor, to me I just see passionate expression and the excitable thrill of discovery in new ideas that possibly just may herald profound insight into, and integration of, many if not all of our scientific disciplines. That's just *my* opinion. And maybe the devil is in the details in that many statements from the sites are wrong from specific and relative perspectives, but holy cow, could that not be said of just about any theory whether generally accepted and peer reviewed or not? In how many cases could it be said that today's acceptable truth was yesterday's disputed heresy?
  • Frankly, I came to my old stand-by (Wiki) searching for an unbiased, balanced article on "Electric Universe Theory." I had already familiarized myself thoroughly with with the theory elsewhere (ala Thunderbolts, Holoscience, et al) but wanted Wiki's perspective and hoped to see a good, over all summary. Shoot, I can't even find what I guess you might call a "zealots'" article (joking). I did run across the arbitration fire fight. Jeeze, one would think the sacred cow of generally accepted science had been threatened by a barbecue. The current vacuum of information and viewpoint saddens me. Now maybe it was just the way the material was presented. Not having seen it I couldn't say. But I do hope someone comes up with a new one, or at least a substantial sub-topic to it here under Plasma Cosmology, whatever. I'd try my hand at it but, alas, am woefully unskilled with the technical verbiage required. Besides, some of the "authority" types I read from the arbitration around the subject are *way* too sensitive (i.e. taking themselves much too seriously, IMO) for my comfort level. But that's probably the idea. It's a shame because I think Wiki is diminished by the absence and unnecessary furor. Ninedragons 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's unfortunate that the EU article got nixed. I tend to be inclusionist. A subject should be neutrally described and INCLUDED for those who wish to find information about it, regardless of what the mainstream OPINION of the topic is. POV-against is just as bad as POV-for on an encyclopedic site like WP. IE, suppression due to bias against is just as bad as POV-pushing due to bias for. The aim should be to present a balanced report not an opinionated essay. the thing itself should be described, with as little opining on right/wrong as possible/justified. Id a note needs to be inserted that "this is non-mainstream" and then a "argument for" and "argument against," fine. But outright deletion seems like a last resort for those unable or unwilling to be NEUTRAL on a topic. Mgmirkin 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That said, I agree with comments above about not "religious fervor" not being an appropriate term, as it likely mis-categorizes a large swatch of people who have no "religious" affiliation to that or any other group. Lastly, I also agree with what I assume Art's position is (correct me if I'm wrong) that an article that is edited by "believers" (those convinced by the arguments made on said sites or by said people) should still be NEUTRALLY edited so as not to advance opinions on or detract from the topic at hand, but to neutrally report on it. Mgmirkin 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of Alfven's work is controversial, radical, and outside the mainstream. Do you wish to banish this from Wiki? For example, the below is quoted from a BB conversation -
"...Alfven suffered no lack of condescension and ridicule in his lifetime, given that his ideas were then, and are still now, considered radical. He was forced to publish in lesser journals, mostly outside the US and UK, and frequently in Russia. His work first received wider recogntion with Cosmical Electrodynamics, published by Oxford University Press, in 1950, but he was not awarded the Nobel Prize until 1970. This seems surprising considering his many achievements.
At his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize he again pointed out the fallacy of Frozen in Magnetic Fields, a nonsense that is still prevalent in the mainstream today. Although he originally proposed this idea, he quickly abandoned it, because it was wrong, a fact that the mainstream seem happy to ignore.
He was also a vociferous critic of the Big Bang, and the approach generally favoured by Big Bangers, that of starting-out from idealised mathematical principles.
Furthermore, in 1937 Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasma carried the electrical currents which create the magnetic field. Is this idea acceptable to the mainstream?..." D V Drew


Soupdragon42 has been repeatedly reinserting these three references (verbatim):

The guideline for including or excluding external links is Wikipedia:External links. As far as I can judge, none of the reasons listed under WP:EL#What should be linked or under WP:EL#Links to be considered apply to these links. This is reason enough to not include them. In addition, I think that some of the problems listed under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided apply. I am particularly concerned by these:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
...
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
...
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

Some additional problems I see are these:

  • plasmacosmology.net does not have an impressum identifying who is responisible for the content.
  • thunderbolts.info is described without attribution or justification as a "leading source".

I respectfully ask Soupdragon42 to reply to these reservations before reinserting the external links.

--Art Carlson 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • In response to your request below (15 May), I hadn't replied here (a) Because you seemed to direct specifically at Soupdragon42, (b) I wanted to concentrate on Scott's book, which I believe is a different kind of source to the two Web sites (c) There's only so many hours in the day!
  • I won't comment further on the book, as I think my comments below are sufficient.
  • Regarding the Web sites, I would note that there seems to be very few Web sites on Plasma Cosmology / Plasma Universe (unlike sites on Big Bang cosmology), and I think that is worth taking into account.
  • plasmacosmology.net
  • ... appears to be generally OK to me. I see obvious areas of contention, with section on the Electric Universe, Ancient Testimony, and Speculations. But these pages are separate and obvious, and do not seem to "pass off" the more speculative material as if it were pure Plasma Cosmology.
  • ... the site certainly isn't peer reviewed, and it is unlikely to have been produced by an "authority"... the Contact page says "Independent Researcher"
  • ... The site more closely resembles a "blog" since it appears to be produced by one person, but that is not grounds for automatic dismissal. We already include a page from the Web site of Ned Wright,[6], and while he is obviously an authority on Big Bang cosmology, I would argue that he is not an authority on Plasma Cosmology. Nevertheless, I am sure he points out some errors in Eric Lerner's work, and I am sure that Lerner has pointed out misunderstandings in Wright's. Either way, there seems to be value in Wright and Lerner's pages (irrespective of whether we agree with their points of view). Likewsise, I think there is value in plasmacosmology.net, even though there may be disagreements with parts of it.
By "value", I assume you are advocating that a link to this site be included in the article. Can you tell me under which of the criteria of WP:EL#What should be linked or WP:EL#Links to be considered you think it qualifies? --Art Carlson 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content...
That's "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." What content on this site do you find meaningful and relevant, but nevertheless unsuitable for inclusion in the article directly? --Art Carlson 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The perfect Catch 22. I find much the contents of the Web site to be suitable for the article; hence it is not suitable as an external link, and readers never know of its existence. But other editors consider the the material to be unsuitable for the article... and is excluded, and readers never know of its existence.
Whether or not any particular content is suitable for this article is not for you to decide alone. It must be hashed out here with the other editors. If in that process it is deemed unsuitable, why should readers be told about it anyway? I am willing to be somewhat looser in my standards for links than in my standards for the article itself, but I agree with policy that minimal standards must also be imposed on links. --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, it is a join decision. It is important to address the reasons other editors may find content unsuitable. I will discuss this with you, but please let me sort out Scott's book first, as I don't have enough time to address the issues.
  • plasmacosmology.net has pages which provide a historical context; for example Birkeland is credited by both Alfvén, and Peratt (and others, all peer reviwed) with being responsible for some early ideas on the subject, and yet he was considered unsuitable for inclusion until just recently. --Iantresman 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't find the historical pages very enlightening, and I don't have a good feeling about the reliability. Are there particular verifiable historical facts that you would like to take up into the article? --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Again, let me sort out Scott's book first, and then I'll come back to them.
  • And in the subsequent section, "Links to be considered", Option 4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" --Iantresman 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The clarification of this point is "For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article." I can understand that it is interesting to hear what someone says about himself, even if he is lying through his teeth. Why is it of similar interest to hear what an anonymous blogger has to say about the subject of plasma cosmology? And why would you describe this person as a "knowledgeable source"? --Art Carlson 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For the same reason the Big Bang article has an external links to sites such as "Welcome to the History of the universe" (Penny Press Ltd). This also appears to be anonymous, and is clearly a "popular level" web site, that must have been seen by many editors during its progress to Featured Article status. The article is regularly policed by ScienceApologist, who tells us he is an "deletionist" and about the importance of "reliable sources", and there it remains. If I use ScienceApologist's criteria, "Welcome to the History of the universe" would have gone ages ago; but there seems to be different standards for mainstream, and non-mainstream sources. Personally I would have included a couple of peer reviewed articles that criticise the Big Bang, or links to external Web sites, but I digress. --Iantresman 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have an opinion about the appropriateness of plasmacosmology.net and thundebolt.info to this article. I don't have an opinion about the appropriateness of historyoftheuniverse.com to the Big Bang article, and this is not the place to discuss the issue. I would like to correct you on one point though: Welcome to the History of the universe in not anonymous. --Art Carlson 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The same Wiki standards apply to all articles equally, so I think it is fair to compare article content. Thanks for finding the author of the Welcome to the History of the universe, in that respect I stand correct. However, I am also satisfied with the site, even though I still think the site fails the authoritative criteria. But again, let me discuss the content of plasmacosmology.net a little later, once we've sorted out Scott's book. --Iantresman 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must declare a potential conflict of interest with the site, as I am shown as a contributor,[7], so I will refrain from commenting more, unless you specifically ask me to do so, now knowing the connection.
  • For similar reasons, I have not added my own Web site, plasma-universe.com, as a possible resource, even though I believe it offers a unique resource. --Iantresman 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That these sites contain occasional incorrect information is regrettable -but the work of generalists and popularizers continues to fill a valuable niche. Inflexibility lessens the general utility of the article in favor of something academic. Hilarleo (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is POV'ed and non-factual

This article is POV'ed and non-factual. I will not edit it because of the wrath of various ardent POVs.

Sad that POV pushers have unbalanced this article. I guess that is why there is the Wikipedia:General disclaimer]. J. D. Redding 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these comments are not especially helpful to other Wikipedians. If there are specific grievances, perhaps elucidate slightly?
Are you implying that Plasma Cosmology itself is non-factual? OR that it has been misrepresented by either the supporters, opponents or both?
Are you implying that the article itself is from a specific POV? If so, whose (outside looking in [standard model supporters reviewing materials they're not familiar with]; inside looking out [written by plasma cosmologist for plasma cosmologists, but in some manner not representing ACTUAL plasma cosmology, or representing it with a specific bias]; some other 3rd party POV I haven't discussed)?
Or are you implying that there is a lot of POV pushing from both sides on the backend Talk page, that is hindering amenable development of the article?
Or is there some other issue I haven't mentioned where you believe a POV is involved?
As I see it, it seems to me there are two sides bickering. "Standard model" supporters on one side, attempting to classify anything they view as non-standard as "pseudo-" or "fringe-" science, and those more familiar with plasma cosmology attempting to reverse what they view as unfair denigration, or what they perceive to be misrepresentation. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
On the last note, I still tend toward the neutral point of view (despite not quite understanding POV-pushing in some of my earlier days). Having studied a bit of "folklore" in college, I might point out that in studying a "culture," it is necessary to divorce one's own preconceptions from the material being studied from the "neutral observer"s point of view. I'd admonish that Wikipedia is not in the business of "judging the validity" of a specific point of view (be it the virgin birth, or ambiplasma), so much as neutrally reporting the facts and circumstances around said point of view. Likewise, a "personal opinion" about "validity" generally constitutes "original research" unless there's valid notable resources to back up said opinion. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So, toward the last bit, I guess I'd say that neutrality is key. Present information factually without opinion/bias one way or the other. The article shouldn't be about "promotion" or about "denigration" so much as simply saying "who said what" "here's the context" "here's what it all means to those who said it" (NOT what it means to the neutral observer who should NOT have an opinion one way or the other on the material, or let it color their interpretation; I know it's hard to keep it "neutral" on controversial topics, but that shouldn't keep us from trying). That said, if it's necessary to add a caveat like "this isn't generally accepted by proponents of the standard model," so be it. But keep it brief, sweet and to the point, and don't express it as POV-pushing. 64.122.15.114 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Apologies for the unsigned comments, it seems wikipedia logged me out after a brief stint away from keyboard.) Mgmirkin 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Removing information claiming it is POV-pushing, is to impose and hence push the counter POV. Perhaps this is why the Wiki page on POV-pushing was removed. --Iantresman 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to mainstream cosmology

This section starts with the statement:

  • From a theoretical point of view, there remain a number of problems with the plasma cosmology model.
  • I'm not aware of any peer reviewed literature that supports this statement, can we have a citation please.--Iantresman 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Basic cosmology publications support this summar statement as listed below. Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, that seemed a bit harsh and pejorative. Perhaps we cold ratchet down the rhetoric just a bit and keep it civil? And, I thought Plasma Cosmology was more Alfven-ian and Birkeland-ian than Velikovskian. Was Velikovskian simply thrown in as an insult? Plasma Cosmology, as I understand it is generally based on the works of notable plasma physicists extrapolating lab results to cosmical plasmas, not on the works of mytho-historians. In this regard it is rather different than say the Electric Universe (concept) which was ungraciously AfD'd (I believe erroneously). Anyway, my point is that PC is based on concepts demonstrated in known physics labs and rigorously tested. Granted it's difficult to rigorously test the application to large scale structures since we don't have access to those large scale structures from our small scale Earth... Mgmirkin 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Who the hell do you think you are removing the disputed tag, and requests for citations. And how dare you accuse me of POV pushing, adding tags is no such thing.
  • And what do you mean by "Pandering to Velikovskians"? Who do you have in mind?
  • This continually association of plasma cosmology with pseudoscience, fringe science, and Velikovsky is farcical, and your judgmental editing technique does you no credit.
  • Note Wikipedian etiquette on editing BEFORE reverting everything you don't like. --Iantresman 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Peratt speaks to your Velikovskian group in the UK, I see. The association is becoming more and more unmistakable. As for your own POV-pushing and continual insertion of Don Scott's nonsense, I stand by my actions. You know the steps of dispute resolution. Try them out. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What?!! Are you calling Peratt a Velikovskian based on a talk? And if this is a criticism, why did you leave all of Peratt's references in the article? In which case, who are the Velikovskians I am supposed to be pandering to? --Iantresman 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Perratt and Scott are not catastrophists! Perratt has praised Scott's new book, and so it would seem petty to leave out Scott's details when Perratt clearly deems them to be consistent with 'acceptable' palsma cosmology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soupdragon42 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
  • I'm free to make commentary on the talkpage, Ian. Yes, I think Peratt is edging ever closer towards Velikovskian pseudoscience, for better or worse. No, I'm not going to include this in the article. Including Don Scott's WP:BOLLOCKS as a resource here is pandering to his thunderbolts.info Velikovskian-inspired pseudoscience. That's why it is rightly removed. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I still don't get what Peratt has to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --Iantresman 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Don Scott is not a reliable source. The citation requests are tendentious and the totally disputed tag does not belong here since there has been no declaration of how the dispute proceeds on this page. --ScienceApologist 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What has PERATT got to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --Iantresman 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The association between this subject and Velikovskian pseudoscience is becoming more and more apparent. --ScienceApologist 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry? What does your perceived association of plasma cosmology and Velikovsian pseudoscience (which no one else on the planet shares), have to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and a reference to Scott's book on the subject? --Iantresman 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was responding to another question you asked. --ScienceApologist 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Being non-specific is not very helpful, and if it is your intent to be vague, and draw things out, then so be it. Well start again and do it one item at a time so there is no ambiguity.

Scott's book

  • You removed the reference to Scott's book on plasma cosmology because of "POV pushing". Twice. This article is about Plasma cosmology, and so is Scott's book. How can this be POV pushing? --Iantresman 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow some of this stuff, and here's what I found on the Internet: Scott is a "supporter of Saturnian Theory" [8], which teaches that "4186 BC...is the moment of 'Creation.'" [9], a site that goes on to explain that Velikovsky believed something similar. This is a more extreme position than the plasma cosmology described in the article. Is this about right? Art LaPella 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And I found a dozen web sites that say that George Bush is an alien reptile, or worse. But it's quite easy to verifiably find what he actually stands for.
  • I'm not aware of any information indicating Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, nor with Velikovsky.
  • Presumably by the same analogy, Einstein's support of Charles Hapgood's Earth shifting crust theory, would discredit Einstein's theories?
  • Either way, this attempt to discredit by association, without even verifiable evidence, is a poor substitute for dealing with verifiable sources on plasma cosmology. --Iantresman 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a website [10] that purports to quote Ian Tresman as follows: "Critics of the "Saturn Theory" suggest that there is no mechanism that could circularize the planets' orbits. Annis says that Donald Scott points out the plasma physics could help here, electrical attraction and repulsion could be the answer, which become effective when their plasma sheaths overlap." Did you say that? Regardless of whether we can trust what Ian said about what Annis said about what Donald said, it would seem that Ian is indeed aware of information about Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, aware enough to discuss how Scott defends it against a specific criticism.
As for discrediting by association, I thought my point was that Scott advocates something a lot weirder than the Plasma cosmology article, so citing him here is perhaps like citing creationists at Big Bang - we refer to creationists as an alternative to the Big Bang, not as support for it. Art LaPella 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the text is indeed mine; Scott gives his opinion on the application of plasma physics to the Saturn theory. It says nothing about Scott's view of the Saturn theory. No doubt you could give a scientific opinion on the nature of UFOs; is that going to make you a UFO supporter, or a sympathizer?
  • This association is incredibly desperate. Peratt's going to talk at a society sympathetic to Velikovsky! Scott spoke to people who talk about the Saturn theory!
  • This is purely an attempt to discredit via wishful association: pseudoskeptical McCarthyism. Let's deal with verifiable sources. --Iantresman 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don Scott is not a reliable source in these matters. He has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology or plasma cosmology, unlike the other people listed as references. --ScienceApologist 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You said that I was POV pushing. Twice. Are you saying that you meant to criticize Scott as a reliable source, and that POV-pushing is not an issue? --Iantresman 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In my book, you are a confirmed POV-pusher who hopes to insert Don Scott into this encyclopedia in spite of his ignorant, unreliable, and skewed positions on the subject in question. --ScienceApologist 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Scott's book is about plasma cosmology. This article is about plasma cosmology. How is that POV-pushing? --Iantresman 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Having already professed your devotion to this particular guru, you now try to insert him into this article. That's POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh, this is so childish. Where have I "professed my devotion to him"? --Iantresman 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can find no such description either now, or previously. Which phrase in particular do you interpret as "devotion to this particular guru,"? --Iantresman 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


It can only mean "the interest in...in particular the work of...Don Scott", so Ian can't honestly be mystified - although "professed my devotion" is exaggerated, at least after the phrase was challenged. You each believe the best way to make your case is to exaggerate it. Art LaPella 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Art,WP:NPA tells us "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
  • And yet ScienceApologist has continued to comment on me, in a quite disrespectful manner, describing my views in a wholly distorted manner. And he continues to deprecate living people, calling Scott "ignorant", in spite of his ArbCom ruling
  • There is no justification for judging content based on the perceived personalities and beliefs of editors and other individuals. Content is judged on content alone.
  • So how have I exaggerated the case to include Scott's book? --Iantresman 09:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of Alfven's ideas are still considered radical and outisde the mainstream by stubborn elements within science. I trust no one would seriously suggest removing the Alfven links, or those of Perratt who was a student of Alfven? Moreover, Peratt has paid tribute to Scott's work. Scott has a PhD although he was modest enough to omit this from the cover of his book. --Soupdragon42
His Nobel Prize is the only reason to include those ideas of Alfven that have been rejected by mainstream science. Wikipedia is required to report what the mainstream and significant minorities believe, not to judge anybody's stubbornness. That Perratt was a student of Alfven is not sufficient reason to include any of his work that does not stand on its own merits. And where does that leave Scott, whose claim to fame is that the student of a Nobel Prize winner once said something nice about him? --Art Carlson 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Plasmacosmology.net site is a summation of the work of Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Perratt, and Scott et al. Langmuir and Alfven won Nobel prizes for their work, and Birkeland probably would have done had he not died shortly after he was nominated!. Just because some in the mainstream are ignorant of the cosmological implications of the work of these great men is no good reason to ignore and suppress this angle! --Soupdragon42
Langmuir never had anything to say about cosmology. Please leave him out of this. --Art Carlson 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That website is not reliable. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous form of Ian's complaint is better, and thus no longer an example of exaggerating his case. A more direct debate could be conducted by those with a copy of the actual book in question (perhaps there is a copy in Seattle). As it is, I'm working with limited information. For instance, the suggested Plasmacosmology.net link says Electric Universe "ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology. While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, Electric Universe supporters promote more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, and also support a number of ideas based on Veliskovkian style catastrophism." So if it isn't the same as plasma cosmology, then maybe it doesn't belong in the plasma cosmology article. Some of each party's charges against the other have the ring of truth, and I would second them more energetically if the opposite charges didn't tend to mitigate each other to some extent. I'm not going to defend ScienceApologist in the paragraph about the arbitration, although I would get more excited about such things if Ian had criticized obviously unhelpful participants like Tommy and Asmodeus, for instance. Art LaPella 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We can check whether each side has a "ring of truth" by a simple process of verifiability.
  • First we need to check whether ScienceApologist explanation of POV-pushing rings true. ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, is it POV-pushing to cite a book that "promote[s] more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe" than the article the cited book supposedly supports, "and also support[s] a number of ideas based on Veliskovkian [sic] style catastrophism"? If plasmacosmology.net is right, then Ian should retract "Scott's book is about plasma cosmology. This article is about plasma cosmology. How is that POV-pushing?" If it's wrong, then Ian should ask Soupdragon42 not to use websites with misinformation comparable to "a dozen web sites that say that George Bush is an alien reptile, or worse". Art LaPella 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • First we need to check whether ScienceApologist explanation of POV-pushing rings true. ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Both EU and PC theories permit many ideas excluded by the mainstream, and they have more in common than they do in conflict. EU ideas are strong enough to survive independently of any catastrophic hypotheses! However, while many mainstream theories based on gradualism preclude, for example, Veliskovkian ideas, both EU and PC ideas permit the possibility. Mainstream science also precluded the possibility of 'Heavier than Air Flight' for some time. ArtLaPella, may I also suggest that you check out the Philosophy section of the PlasmaCosmology.net web site. --Soupdragon42
  • Art, The book is not "cited" to support any statement, it is included as a suggestion for Further Information.
  • Hannes Alfvén and his theories are already considered "maverick" or "radical". Alfvén has already promoted the importance of electricity in astromomy,[11] [12] [13]. Peratt has also hightlighted the importance of electricity in astronomy, [14] [15].
  • plasmacosmology.net states an opinion on the difference between Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. But is seems to me that the Web site is predominantly about Plasma Cosmology, and makes it clear which areas deal with the Electric Universe.
  • Without intending to sound rude, I am currently dealing with ScienceApologist's exclusion of Scott's book. ScienceApologist has made several unsubstantiated claims against Scott, and it shouldn't be difficult to provide verification.
  • ScienceApologist, I can find nothing on my Userpage suggesting I "professed my devotion to him", unless you are referring to the statement identified by Art, that I have an "interest in... in particular the work of...Don Scott". Please clarify. --Iantresman 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You have found it, Ian. Congratulations. --ScienceApologist 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article"[16]. Please provide some evidence that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • EDIT WAR! I have added details of Scott's book to the Plasma Cosmology section a number of times now, but someone (ScienceApologist?) appears to be in an edit war, and continually removes the data before any consensus has been reached here! Additonally, I would like to know who has made the ad hominen attack on me, alleging that I am a sock puppet? Soupdragon42 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes two sides to make an edit war. Art Carlson has made a better attempt than anyone else at reaching a consensus on this issue, by explaining his reasoning in more detail. Please answer his criticism. As for the sock puppet allegation, I couldn't find it, but a sufficiently justified allegation that someone has violated a policy such as Wikipedia:Sock puppetry isn't automatically bad. Wikipedia has that policy for a reason. Art LaPella 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Soupdragon42, you have now violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. That is a blockable offense. If you do it again and ScienceApologist doesn't report you, I will. Art LaPella 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that others have also reverted the information the other way, at least three times while discussion is going on. It may not have been within a 24-hour period, and it may not have been the same individual, but it escalates the edit war.
  • Discussion is also a farce, with editors not having the courtesy to answer basic questions, making the claims they will not, or can not verify, or resorting to ad hominem arguments.
  • The fault lies equally with Wikipedia itself, which has a set of policies which are pretty much optional, enforcement is at the whim of administrators who hand it out unequally, if at all.
  • ScienceApologist, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article"[17]. Please provide some evidence that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, others approached the limits of edit warring rules, but the fact that it wasn't the same individual is not a technicality - it's in the rules to see that one side has more than one advocate. Art LaPella 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what SA had in mind when he made that remark. I can find no proof of its truth, but it does seem plausible. For example, his bio on the thunderbolts team page says "he has been emcee of several conferences on cosmic catastrophe". It is possible to emcee conferences on topics you don't believe in (even several times), and there may be non-Velikovskian ideas on cosmic catastrophe (though those names are certainly closely associated). (If you want to argue at that level, you should note that SA actually wrote in full "I agree with Art, the Velikovskian advocates jump on Alfven's bandwagon, but are themselves promoting their own versions of the "electric universe". Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article." The identification of Scott as a Velikovskian is technically the result of Ian's ellipses.)
So what's your point, Ian? Do you just want to force SA to admit he said something plausible without hard evidence? Are you suggesting it is OK to include a link to anybody's book in the PC article, as long as the author is not a Velikovskian? Is there any chance you could ignore the baiting and/or colloquial formulations by SA and concentrate on proposed changes to the article? We'd appreciate it.
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask SA to try to find language that doesn't pull Ian's chain any more than necessary. A remark now and then on the lines of "OK. I see a lot of associations between Scott and Velikovskians, but of course I don't really know what he thinks on the subject" would also help pour oil on the waters. It would be nice to increase the productivity to bickering ratio here, even if it means ignoring opportunities to win rhetorical points.
--Art Carlson 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A source should not be assessed on the plausibility of whether the author is a Velikovskian), has spoken to a Velikovskian, or has even heard of a Velikovskian. It's plausible that editors here are incompetent, have their own agenda, or vote Republican. All utterly irrelevant.
  • A source should not be assessed on whether a contributing author has "an interest" in a subject, and to interpret this as "professing a devotion to a guru" is juvenile, and does not address content.
  • Scott's book was also criticized for "POV-pushing", which I now note is not included as an "objection", presumably since articles are full of points of view.
  • ScienceApologist's criticisms make no attempt to provide verification (after four days of discussion), and nor do they address the source (ie. content) itself. What are the chances we'll get a forth objection?
  • We should address the merit of Scott's book directly, and not using ad hominems against the author or contributing editors. --Iantresman 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Then isn't it about time you address my objections, which are based on content? --Art Carlson 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding PlasmaCosmology.net
  • FAO ArtCarlson. You have made the claim that Langmuir had nothing do with cosmology. Please check this link on A. Perratt's site: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/history.html It says "...Langmuir was the first to coin the term plasma (in 1923), borrowing the term from medical science, to describe the lifelike state he observed in the laboratory. He also the first to discover 'double sheathes,' now called double layers, as the plasma electrons and ions separated in his glass tubes..."
  • Please note that Double Layers are very important to Plasma Cosomology. Plasma behaviours can be scaled from laboratory to cosmic scales. Alfven and Perratt have developed his work.
I agree that Langmuir was one of the all time great plasma physicists. (There may be some personal prejudice in there.) The mainstream is not ignorant of his work. The "cosmological implications" of his work are at issue here, and I think it is important to remember that these "implications" were drawn by people like Lerner and Peratt, not by Langmuir himself. You might as well claim Maxwell and Newton as fathers of plasma cosmology because PC uses their results. I stand by my statement: Langmuir said a hell-of-a-lot about plasmas, but nothing at all directly about cosmology. --Art Carlson 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • FAO ScienceApologist. You have made the allegation that PlasmaCosmology.net is not reliable. Please substantiate this claim. Soupdragon42 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you might take some time to read reliable source guidelines on Wikipedia. It clearly is not a reliable source as far as the authorship and venue. --ScienceApologist 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, for the third(?) time, you described "the Velikovskian advocates .. Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article"[14]. Please provide some evidence or clarification that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate" --Iantresman 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should I? It's not a piece of information I'm asking to include in the article. The problems with Scott's beliefs have been well-documented by the Arts. Your request is a plain waste of time. --ScienceApologist 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To support the integrity of the criticisms you make. Out of courtesy to your fellow editors, who spent time answering questions and provided verification you demand of them.
  • And you continue to insult authors (yet another "ignorant" comment above)[18][19], you belittle your fellow editors with childish quips of "professing a devotion to a guru"[20], you remove information from articles and seem to think that you are above having to justify your edits, you remove "dispute" tags from the article,[21][22] despite this probably being one of the most disputed articles on Wikipedia, and you have to removed information from the article that you addded, because it is totally unfounded,[23][24].
  • YOU characterized Scott as a "Velikovskian advocate", and now you will not, or can not substantiate your comment. --Iantresman 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. Please correct the apparent typo "you have to removed your information..." so I know what to make of it. Art LaPella 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ian, could you please step outside if you want to fight with SA? This page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Discussions of the impoliteness and/or childishness of SA can be carried out on his Talk page or by email. Or get an arbitrator, or file a complaint, but leave us out of it. --Art Carlson 07:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Argue facts, not personalities.
  • Don't ignore questions
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
  • Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste
  • All I want to do is clarify the reasons ScienceApologist has for removing Scott's book, and address them. I currently have one simply request, for ScienceApologist to justify his "reason" for describing Scott as a Velikovskian advocate. This is not an unreasonable request. --Iantresman 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

I have just looked through the lengthy discussions on Scott's book, hoping to summarize the arguments based on content for and against including a link. It's depressing. ScienceApologist pointed out that Scott "has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology or plasma cosmology". Art LaPella reminded us that Electric Universe ideas, while related, cannot be equated to Plasma Cosmology. Ian did not respond specifically to my objections, which were intended to refer to the book as well as the links. I am still of the opinion that policy prohibits including a link to Scott's book. Could I ask Ian or Soupdragon42 to state under which points they think it should be allowed? Please say why the reliable information should not be simply added to the article (which would give the editors to a chance to examine its reliability in detail), or why it is approriate to link to information even though it is unreliable. --Art Carlson 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Scott's book is not an "external link", it is provided as an example of further reading, and in addition to Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened, is the only other popular book on the subject.
As near as I can tell, wiki policy applies the same criteria to books for further reading as it does to external links. See WP:CITE#Further reading/External links. And do you not count the books by Thornhill and Talbott? --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Scott has a doctorate, taught at the University of Massachusetts, and has a peer reviewed paper appearing in the August 2007 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (About the Author). He is not unqualified to write a book on science.
Still, he is not a cosmologist, not a (professional) astronomer, and not a physicist, either by training or by publication list (to date). Maybe he is "not unqualified to write a book on science", but he is not well qualified to write a book on cosmology. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • More important are comments from other astronomers and scientists directly about Scott's book, including Plasma Universe expert Dr Anthony Peratt, and others, Endorsements Personally, I feel that four Ph.D scientists lend more weight than any of us editors. --Iantresman 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by his endorsements. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And there is not enough room in the article to added 248-pages worth of information from Scott's book. Even if 10% of the book is worth adding to the article, there would still not be enough room. --Iantresman 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be the crux of your argument: The information is reliable but too extensive. (Cf. Point 3 of WP:EL#What should be linked.) In that case, we need to ask what the major arguments for and against the reliability are. And what we should do if "10%" is reliable but 90% is not. --Art Carlson 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lerner's book was published by Vintage, at least it's a respectable publishing outfit. Scott's book was published by Mikamar Publishing which basically is a mouthpiece for Velikovskian pseudoscience. WP:REDFLAG certainly applies here, exclusion is completely reasonable. --ScienceApologist 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with someone's other views should not prevent you from referencing him or her where you do agree. I may reference James P. Hogan's web page reference to Electric Stars as I believe it's a better fit to the facts than the standard view. But, I certainly do not agree with his views on either evolution or catastrophism (Velikovsky style). The same holds for Scott's book. Having read it, I can states that he does not provide any clear support to catastrophism at all. (Your argument, however, is far too reminiscent of [[25]]). — Dmacgr 22 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

(Note: I wrote this before the latest round under "Summary". I am no longer so sure that the "inclusionists" are willing to concede the unreliability of the source. Are you? Please remember that "unreliable" does not mean "false".)

I suspect the interests here may be more orthogonal than opposed.

The "inclusionists" (I believe) are concerned that information be provided to readers without worrying too much about the quality of that information. They recognize (I hope) that we might not be able to establish the reliability of the information in the sense of Wikipedia policy, and they may be willing (key point!) to point that out to the reader. Some readers will want to read it anyway, and the inclusionists believe we should make their life easy.

The "exclusionists" are concerned that unwarranted authority or attention might be lent to unreliable sources. They don't want to mislead the reader and don't want to tarnish Wikipedia's reputation for reliability. They are not interested (key point!) in censoring any web sites and don't care who reads them, as long as they have been warned that they are leaving the realm of reliable information. The form of any reference to such material must be clear (Warning! Unreliable!) and concise (to avoid giving it undue weight).

On the basis of this analysis, I propose a footnote, possibly attached to the end of the first sentence or the end of the introduction, along the lines of this:

The phrase "plasma cosmology" has been used in different ways. This article will concentrate on ideas that have been presented and evaluated in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There are also sources outside professional science, such as web sites and popular books, that present ideas they describe as plasma cosmology. These sources are not "reliable" in the sense of Wikipedia policy. Some examples or such sources are ...

--Art Carlson 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that referencing Wikipedia policy on an article page is acceptable. Indeed, I have never seen another page that has text which states this directly. Besides, if the sources are not reliable why should Wikipedia, which is striving at least in part for reliability, even mention them? --ScienceApologist 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason would be this: While the site is not reliable on the facts, it is a reliable source about what self-professed plasma cosmology supporters say about themselves. The trouble with this argument (and not the only one) is that we have no way to judge how representative these particular supporters are, or even if they represent a significant POV. Well, I thought I would give it a try, but it isn't a proposal I'm willing to fight for. We'll see what Ian thinks, but my current impression is that he won't like it much either. --Art Carlson 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy statement is not appropriate, but I would have thought that just labelling the references as "Popular-level book" or "Popular website" would qualify the matter. But seem my comments below on using Creationist Web sites. --Iantresman 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite the lapse of time since this discussion raged in May 2007, perhaps the following information might provide additional closure:

The "Electric Universe" model propounded by Thornhill and Scott was conceived by civil engineer Ralph Juergens (http://www.velikovsky.info/Ralph_Juergens) in 1967 when he submitted a letter to Nature, which was rejected. Eventually his ideas were presented to the public at the Velikovsky conference at Lewis and Clark College in 1972, sponsored by Pensée magazine published by Dave Talbott, with the title: "Plasma in Space: Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism". It was published in Pensée IVR II, 1972, and reprinted in Editors of Pensée, Velikovsky Reconsidered (New York, 1976). See <http://www.mikamar.biz/pdf/Reconciling%20Celestial%20Mechanics.pdf>.

To anyone familiar with the Velikovsky literature, Scott's book is entirely Velikovskian in flavor, citing Juergens in the Velikovsky journal Kronos from 1979 and 1982, for example. Scott's comments about planet Venus are pure Velikovskian apologetics. These citations suggest that Scott subscribed to Kronos. Thornhill has published several articles in the British Velikovsky-oriented S.I.S. Review and its new title C&C Review (with which Ian Tresman is affiliated) supporting Velikovsky's "youthful" Venus.

Beginning in March 2008, astrophysicist Tom Bridgman, at NASA-Goddard-Greenbelt, has been posting to the WWW critiques of Scott's book, starting with "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited": <http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf> with additional analyses at <http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com>. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

  • OK, I am leaving Wikipedia, but not in response to your suggestion Art, which I appreciate
  • But after yet another personal attack from ScienceApologist, who obviously can't find anything to suggest that Scott is a "Velikovskian advocate", has now moved to his publisher, and wants us to believe that the contents of someone's books are dependent on the contents of the publisher's other books; (The logic is incredulous). This from someone who is quite happy to use Creationist Web sites when it suits him,[26], and to remove peer reviewed references, when they don't.[27]. ScienceApologist's approach is inconsistent with WP:NPA which tells us that "some types of comments are never acceptable [..] Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme"
  • Art (and Art), I have a good deal of respect for you both, and can at least engage in conversation with both of you. I disagree that the "exclusionists" do not want to mislead, having
  • Added pseudoscience category tags to the article TWICE,[28][29] without even an unreliable source, let alone peer reviewed source.
  • Adding gems such as "his theories have been for the most part dismissed as philosophical beliefs with no sound basis in science"[30], again with no inkling of a source
  • And tells us that he has "an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world"[31]
  • Removes disputed tags from the article,[32] despite the article being still disputed by myself, J. D. Redding,[33] and I assume, SoupDragon42.
  • And currently we have the highly misleading "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" section, which boldly states there are problems with plasma cosmology (no references), and provides citations [18] - [24]...
  • Peebles mentions the word "plasma" but a dozen times, never in relation to Plasma Cosmology,[34],
  • Hoyle and M. S. Vogeley's "Voids in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey", doesn't even mention the word plasma![35]
  • Bartelmann, and Schneider's "Weak Gravitational Lensing" mention the word plasma but five times (in 225 pages), and never in the context of Plasma Cosmology!,[36] and so it goes on.
  • Do ANY of the sources mention Plasma Cosmology, let alone note that there are problems with it?
  • Can you imagine what would happen if I added the sentence "there are problems with Big Bang cosmology", and posted a citation to articles on the Plasma Universe... that didn't even mention aspects of Standard cosmology!
  • All this from the self-proclaimed "mainstream expert",[37] (Ph.D? Peer reviewed articles on Cosmology?), and Professor.[38]
  • What's your definition of "misleading"?
  • And I suspect that the funny part of all this, is that I'll be the one who gets criticised. --Iantresman 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction

The article erroneously states that: "Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced, [...]" The following article describes thermalization of synchrotron radiation in plasma filaments, resulting in cosmic background radiation:

W. Peter, A. Peratt. Synchrotron Radiation Spectrum for Galactic-Sized Plasma Filaments. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18:1, 1990, 49-55. http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PeterPeratt.pdf

Leokor 04:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The COBE results were announced in 1992. --Art Carlson 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So what? They didn't disprove the article. It's in agreement with the results. --Leokor 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So ... it is not erroneous to state that "no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced". --Art Carlson 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In terms of formal logic, no. But it's misleading, making it appear as if the COBE results disprove plasma cosmology--which they don't. --Leokor 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree that the article is formally correct as it stands. If we can make it clearer, we should certainly do so. Do you have a concrete suggestion? I think it is important to report, in one form or another, the fact that no plasma cosmology explanation of the COBE results has been published in the 15 years since they came out. I looked over the article from Peter and Peratt, but I couldn't find any prediction of that model for the magnitude or spatial scale of the deviations from a black-body spectrum. Did I overlook it? I suppose I must have, since you would not be able to claim COBE agrees with P&P unless they made a prediction. --Art Carlson 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. In order to pit the COBE results against the Plasma Universe, they must falsify its predictions. Do they? Innocent till proven guilty. The phrasing, as well as the general tone of the article it appears in, are very biased, suggesting to an average reader that the COBE results in some way disprove the Plasma Universe. Thus, I argue it must at the very least be reworked. --Leokor 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Now, if only Plasma Cosmology had made any predictions on the deviations from a black-body spectrum, we would be in business. --Art Carlson 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we would be in a very different business indeed. But right now we're in a less significant, albeit related, business of editing the Wikipedia article. So I suggest the references be rephrased in an unbiased fashion, to accurately reflect where things stand right now, as we have discussed here. The current phrasing, as I have already pointed out, while technically (in the sense of "casuistically") correct, it may mislead the reader. --Leokor 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, where does the "integrated starlight" thingie come from? Quoting from the aticle:
"Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced, explanations relying on integrated starlight do not provide any indication of how to explain the observed angular power spectrum of one part in 105 CMB anisotropies."
What integrated starlight? Does Peter and Peratt's paper mention any? -- Leokor 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are each invited to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about (my job is financial but I've watched this argument a long time), but how about something like "no plasma cosmology proposal has been published that explains why hundreds/thousands of COBE statistics fit the six-parameter lambda-CDM model, which appears to confirm the Big Bang"? I realize Leokor won't like that version, but doesn't it do a better job of explaining what was left out so as to avoid misleading the reader? Art LaPella 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me explain a few things about the scientific method. The quoted part of your post essentially amounts to this: Theory A didn't try to explain why a certain experiment agrees with Theory B. Well, how shall I put it? It doesn't have to. Such-and-such experiment agrees with Theory B--good for it. Does it prove it? No. No finite number of experiments can ever prove a scientific hypothesis. The more observations agree with it, the more trustworthy it may be perceived to be. But there is always a possibility that some future experiment will falsify it. A hundred experiments may have agreed with the theory, but a single contrary experiment breaks it apart. Just look what happened with the Newtonian mechanics--how many experiments did it take to usher in the special relativity?
So one theory doesn't have to do anything about a particular experiment agreeing with another theory--especially if it agrees with both. Each theory lives or falls on the basis of experimental data, totally independently of any other theory. That is, this is the ideal situation in science, provided no politics is involved. But, of course, we're human. So some politics always gets involved. Especially when we're talking about generations of scientists making their careers on something that the other side dismisses almost wholesale. But politics is bad for science. A few centuries ago, the Catholic church decided that it had to have all answers to the "heavenly matters." So they chose one theory and turned it into a dogma (even though their theology doesn't actually require the Earth to be in the center). Bad idea. Once they chose it, they had to stick to it, and in the end they have lost a lot of reputation over that. Well, now we have a branch of science in a similar position.
Interestingly enough, our spacecraft has already visited four comets, delivered samples back from one, and none of them turned out to be a ball of ice. How many contrary experiments does it take to finally realize that they simply aren't? But the modern astronomers have turned interpreting of contrary evidence into an art. Consider the dark matter, for example. Back in the 30s, astronomers noticed that the galaxies don't rotate the way they ought to. Since gravity is the only force they work with, they hypothesized the existence of enormous quantities of dark matter--something that neither absorbs nor emits light and doesn't interact with anything else other than by gravity--just something invisible with mass and nothing else. They placed it wherever it was needed to rescue the theory. (Yeah, and the medieval astronomers, when faced with the retrograde movement of planets, couldn't conceive of anything other than Earth being in the center, and so hypothesized the existence of epicycles.) Ever since, astronomers have been trying to prove the dark matter's existence. You may have seen some recent announcements that dark matter was discovered as surely as one can see the ring's of Saturn. The press releases have been very loud about that, only at the very end (where very few readers would bother looking) explaining just how the dark matter was observed. You see, some galaxies turned out to be brighter than they ought to be. Yet another contrary experiment, nimbly twisted into a semblance of success. How in the world is it different from the rotation of galaxies?
Or take the recent announcement that the mystery of the ridge of Iapetus [corrected from: Enceladus] has been solved. You know, the equatorial ridge that often forms in labs as a result of powerful electric discharges. Granted, there is not much evidence yet to substantiate either hypothesis. But we at least have the decency to say that we only suspect it may have electric origin. The press releases loudly proclaim that the mystery has been solved, in present perfect. On what basis? The astronomers merely think that a rapid rotation in the moon's past may have resulted in this (and why was it rotating differently than it does now? aren't they supposed to keep telling us the solar system is immutable?). Well, just because someone has thought of some hypothesis doesn't automatically make it right. Is this level of scientific rigor acceptable to the modern astronomers? It sure looks it is.

--Leokor 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"The more observations agree with it, the more trustworthy it may be perceived to be." Thus I would think it is relevant that "Theory A didn't try to explain why a certain experiment agrees with Theory B", because it makes Theory B more trustworthy and therefore Theory A less trustworthy, if taken at face value anyway. This doesn't prove Theory B, but that can't be a reason to remove the fact since you argue there is no proof of anything (true of the physical sciences, within limits) so we should remove scientific facts from Wikipedia altogether by that logic. Do you want to remove the fact altogether because you think there's no way to explain it without misleading, or is there a specific point that none of the versions has explained adequately enough for you? The point about Enceladus was new to me, although I've watched this since 2005. My impression of scientific rigor of modern astronomers vs. plasma cosmologists is based on how much rigor I see in Wikipedia from them. Art LaPella 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've made a Freudean slip. Wring moon. It's Iapetus that has the equatorial bulge, not Enceladus. Enceladus has other problems, though, which I have been thinking about lately. --Leokor 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, and one theory still doesn't have to explain why something agrees with another theory. Not that there aren't enough observations that disagree with the standard cosmology. The fact that it has to use different parameter values to fit itself into various observations alone falsifies it. There is an interesting list at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp --Leokor 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to mainstream cosmology

  • This entire section reads as an advert for the Standard Cosmology. We'll start with the very first sentence: "From a theoretical point of view, there remain a number of problems with the plasma cosmology model" (my emphasis)
  • (a) None of the citations provided support this particular sentence, (b) the "Burden of evidence" is on the editor who included it (c) "Claims of consensus must be sourced" (d) "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts (my emphasis), " (contrary to no original research)
  • I asked for a citation for this sentence, and it was removed. ScienceApologist, please provide both a citation AND an actual extracted, that supports this sentence. --Iantresman 10:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is supported by the citations in the paragraph. --ScienceApologist 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-stating it, does not make it so. Please provide an extract from any of your citations, that supports the sentence, so that other editors may assess it. --Iantresman 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you object to. If you are objecting to summarizing the point that plasma cosmology has problems, then you obviously must object to one or all of the problems listed. Whichever it is, you haven't been clear enough for a response to be proffered. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All you have to do is provide any citation and its extract, which mentions any problem with plasma cosmology (or the Plasma Universe, or the theories or models or hypotheses of its proponents). WP:NPOV says that editors can not "introduce an analysis or synthesis"no original research, which I believe is what this section amounts to... because I have not seen any peer reviewed sources that support any part the criticism against the Plasma Universe. --Iantresman 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You are asking for an impossibility. Because plasma cosmology is ignored by scientists, the only thing we can do is compare it to the mainstream. The "problems" wording is arguable but very common in science. In any case, it has been reworded by Art and myself. What needs to be made clear to the reader is two things: 1) plasma cosmology does not have the standing of mainstream cosmology and 2) plasma cosmology does not explain to the same level of detail the observations explained by the Big Bang models. I'll also point out that Peebles did criticize ambiplasma models directly as is cited in our article. --ScienceApologist 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the citations do not support the wording, because it is impossible to verify.
  • So if Plasma Cosmology is generally ignored, then we say so (if we have a citation). We don't draw unverifiable conclusions, that is "synthesis" and original research. For example, we might have said that Plasma Cosmology does not support/predict dark matter distribution; of course not! the Plasma Cosmology does not require dark matter. And who is to say what is a valid criticism and what isn't; certainly not editors as we are not verifiable.
  • Now, if you want to compare Plasma Cosmology with Standard Cosmology, we can do so without drawing unverifiable conclusions. For example, in comparison to Standard Cosmology, Snell and Peratt say that their Plasma Cosmology galaxy simulation does not need dark matter; and that is verifiable. See "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies" in Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 167-173 (see abstract and page 173). --Iantresman 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As was made clear during the arbitration, when something is ignored we don't need a citation to indicate that it is ignored. The article does an admirable job comparing the two models. Your objections have therefore been understood and answered so your tag is now removed. Please direct further inquiries to WP:DR as I will ignore any more lines of inquiry coming from you in this vein. Thanks. --ScienceApologist 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to report the verifiable fact that Peratt says his galaxy formation model doesn't need dark matter, Ian, then you wouldn't object to also reporting the verifiable facts that his model cannot explain the rotation curves or virial velocities of stars or the gravitational lensing observations, would you? --Art Carlson 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable? Show. --Leokor 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope this reference will help you get your research started. --Art Carlson 09:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I'll take a close look. By the way, that article is available in full from http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1995Ap%26SS.227..175W&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=175&epage=175&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
--Leokor 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, I have taken a look and found serious issues both with the article itself and with its relevance to Peratt's galaxy formation model. The article itself, first.
The idea that a pair of massive bodies in a stable circular motion around a common point is interesting and quite inventive; they do not collapse into each other because, moving at relativistic speeds, each is attracted to the time-retarded position of the other, so that the resulting forces are not central. By itself, this is an interesting theoretical exercise. But there is a problem in its application to real galaxies. From the formulas (11c) and (12c), by equating the energy gain with the energy loss, the author obtains that each body's speed must be a half of the speed of light--more rigorously, a half of the speed of the gravitational force propagation, which remains unknown and, according to General Relativity, may be greater than the speed of light (even infinite), as the article's author acknowledges in the discussion section. Naturally, it's enough for the speed of gravity propagation to be greater than twice the speed of light for the model presented in the article to become physically impossible.
But even if the speed of gravity propagation is equal the speed of light, the model still has problems. According to the formula (13b), the angular speed of the galaxy is proportional to R^(-3/2), where R is the distance from the center. This is not the case with real galaxies. So the model dies right there.
As to the relevancy of the article, it mentions the Peratt's model only to say that "the formation of charge-neutral stars seems to return the scenario to the gravitational domain, and to subsequent dissolution" (the same thing is repeated another time in the article, slightly rephrased). However, charge-neutral stars are nowhere mentioned in Peratt's articles. Stars are made of plasma and lack a definitive boundary (aren't solid). Neutrality is not even applicable to plasma; it's usually quasi-neutral (but doesn't have to be). Even if we talk of the plasma inside the photosphere, even then it's not at all obvious that it must be charge-neutral. We cannot measure out Sun's electric charge. More importantly, the Peratt's model is built not on pith-ball electrostatics (as the article appears to assume), but on interactions between electric currents--and quasi-neutral plasma can maintain electric currents.
Moreover, the Wikipedia footnote quotes Peratt as saying on p.775 that "For 'particles' of the size of kilometers or more, the inertia and gravitational terms dominate. Electromagnetic forces are negligible, and viscous forces can be considered perturbations which may change the orbit slowly." However, the quote is taken out of context. The link to the Peratt's article in question is: http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf. If you take a look at p.775, you'll notice that the quote immediately follows the heading "3. Large Solid Bodies." Not only does this not apply to stars, but it doesn't even assume the bodies in question are charge-neutral. (And, of course, we know that for planets gravity is more important; that is why the solar system doesn't have any spiral arms!)
Finally, you claim in this discussion thread that "verifiable facts that his model cannot explain the rotation curves or virial velocities of stars or the gravitational lensing observations." Not only does the article you quoted not say a single word about, but the article itself gives a wrong power law for angular velocity.
Based on this, I suggest that the footnote be removed, and that the sentence in the main body of the article that the footnote appears in be removed too, because, without the footnote, it becomes unfounded, and because it is untrue of itself. A link to the article from the footnote may be kept as a curiosity, if you find a good place for it.
--Leokor 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I guess that reference wasn't so very helpful after all. Please note that the reference and the sentence containing it is in an *old* (Dec 2006) version of the article. The current version does not contain any such discussion, so we are spared the agony of trying to convince each other of anything. --Art Carlson 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • the peer-reviewed Stephen G. Brush, "Alfvén's programme in solar system physics", in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol. 20 No.6 (Page 584) (Dec 1992).
  • The academic book, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, by the Professor of the History of Science at the University of Aarhus, Helge S. Kragh
  • Some of your comments are not very constructive. Wikipedia works by building consensus, so please don't remove my dispute tags without proper discussion, just because you are unable to provide citations. --Iantresman 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The introductory sentence is better, but sill provides criticisms without citations; we need comparisons without (your) judgment. I will make some suggestions shortly. --Iantresman 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

Plasma cosmology#Further reading says "The Plasma Universe (Website) overview and peer reviewed paper collection. [25]" The link currently numbered 25 is a dead link, because it occurs after the reference section. I fixed the link once [39] by moving the reference section afterwards, but that has now been reverted [40] with the edit summary "appendices per MoS". My edit summary had already addressed that issue: it reads "Ian's new reference didn't work, so I moved References afterwards. That isn't the sequence at Wikipedia:Guide to Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, but it's "okay to change"." The "okay to change" quote is from the given Guide to Layout link, which says it's part of the Manual of Style. Regardless of who is right about the Manual of Style we shouldn't have a dead link, so something has to give. Art LaPella 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've removed the note to the reference; it was only providing additional information which was not essential. --Iantresman 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact check?

I've added a Fact tag for the statement: "there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents" ('emphasis mine). I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, possibly from POV-pushing (can't say for sure) and overly broad. Aside from which how does one "prove a negative" like this? Did someone check every available resource in every journal in order to state so blatantly that there is no evidence? What of synchrotron radiation that has been observed from charged particles spiraling in magnetic fields of polar jets and other structures, etc? Either, rephrase so it's not an overly broad statement, cite something notable from which this statement came directly, or remove the statement. Thanks. Mgmirkin 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement in that form is too general to be useful. What we are looking for is something along the lines of An example of a speculation by Alfvén that has not been borne out by subsequent observations is the idea that Birkeland currents play an important role in the formation of filamentary structures and even of stars.[10] In Alven's models, these currents would have to reach a density of XXX A/m2, with associated magnetic fields of at least YYY T. The largest magnetic fields that have ever been observed in interstellar space (through synchrotron emission by free electrons) are, however, only ZZZ T.[n] Of course, in a pinch, it would do if we could just find a reliable source that says that there is "no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents". --Art Carlson 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There was observation of large scale birkeland currents, though I have been away from this stuff so long I don't recall where it can be found. I think maybe Peratt has a link to the paper on his website.

Proposal not worthy of consideration?

The article concludes with:

"Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration."

I don't have a problem with the first quoted sentence. The astronomical community indeed doesn't consider the Plasma Universe worthy of consideration. But what is the mysterious "the community" of the second sentence? Which community is that? More importantly, since when has the lack of detail made any theory unworthy of serious consideration? Does a theory have to be born all grown up from the start in order to be worthy?

I think the author simply wanted to say that, and did. Biased and logically untenable. --Leokor 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the word "community" is mysterious because it's the same word as in the first sentence, so it has to mean "astronomical community". Is that what you were asking? Since when has the lack of detail made any theory unworthy of serious consideration? Well, I have a devastating answer but it's lacking in detail, so just trust me. Does a theory have to be born all grown up from the start in order to be worthy? Well, the article's first relevant date is 1970, so that baby is older than most Wikipedians. A better case can be made that the paragraph probably overemphasizes one of the many reasons plasma cosmology is unpopular among professional scientists. Art LaPella 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really want to know why the Plasma Universe wasn't developed as actively as various branches of the mainstream astrophysics? Politics, politics, politics. The matter is perceived to be in the domain of astronomers and astrophysicists, even though it also has to do with plasma. Plasma physisists don't get much money to pursue these matters; they're needed elsewhere, in fusion, laser, and surface plasmon technologies. The visible, and very vocal, opposition by the traditional astronomers, who are perceived to be experts in the field, doesn't help much either. (Vocal indeed; just look at this article. Some religious cults receive less scrutiny.) The science has become too compartmentalized nowadays, and too complex for most people to get into. Thus, most people get their science from press releases of expert opinion, without bothering to critically look at them. That's why.
By the way, don't hesitate to give your devastating answer. --Leokor 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the last sentence either, though for slightly different reasons; "a proposal unworthy of serious consideration" smacks of conspiracy theory. I'm sure it's a true sentence, but the wording is inflammatory. Similarly, the phrase "ignored by..." in the opening. Again, true in the literal sense, but inflammatory wording. It's ignored because it doesn't stack up as well as GR, etc. Joel.Gilmore (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Links

I'm sure to add more. But, for starters, I suggest to add the following link:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

This is a part of the Los Alamos National Laboratory website devoted specifically to the Plasma Universe. It is maintained by Dr. Anthony Peratt, a member of the Associate Directorate of LANL. The website includes the general introductory material, a more detailed material on specific subjects, and a list of scientific publications for those more seriously inclined (directly linked from the website). It also provides an overview of the history of the subject, the people involved, and the methods employed, including the experimental and the numerical simulation approaches.

The parent website is http://plasma.lanl.gov. But since it covers many other subjects besides the Plasma Universe, I find the link above to be more appropriate. --Leokor 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but be prepared to answer the objection that others (not me) have brought up the last umpteen times we argued this: that the Plasma Universe is a more extreme opinion than plasma cosmology as those terms are often used, and in particular the Plasma Universe shouldn't be confused with Alfven and his Nobel Prize. Art LaPella 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what the Plasma Universe is. There really ought to be a Plasma Universe article here, at Wikipedia, with Plasma Cosmology being a subarticle (or whatever you call it). Cosmology deals with the question of how the universe came to be. It doesn't, for example, comprise such areas as aurora formation, geomagnetic storms, studies of planets, comets, etc. Cosmogony deals with the question of how the solar system came to be. Yet it is still not enough to encompass all plasma phenomena in space. Well, that's what the Plasma Universe is: it addresses all plasma phenomena in space, including both cosmological and cosmogonic concerns. And anything that has to do with plasma cannot but be influenced by electromagnetic forces--often more so than by gravity. (Heh, I've heard some astronomers seriously question whether the solar wind particles can reach escape velocity. Escape velocity? Charged elementary particles don't notice gravity; it's too weak for that, next to the electromagnetic forces between the particles. Only much heavier bodies do.)
By the way, take a look at this:
H. Alfven. Plasma Universe. Physica Scripta, vol. T18, 20-28, 1987
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/AlfvenPlasmaUniverse.pdf
Or this:
H. Alfven. Model of the Plasma Universe. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. vol. PS-14, No.6, 1986
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/ModelOfTPU_Alfv%8En.pdf
Or this:
H. Alfven. Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. vol. 18, No.1, 1990
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/CosmologyAlfven.pdf
--Leokor 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article addressing "all plasma phenomena in space" is titled Astrophysical plasma in accordance with the standard usage. --Art Carlson 09:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So why do you have "Plasma cosmology" at all? May as well turn a perfect censor, allowing only the standard cosmology to be represented in Wikipedia. Allow me to remind you that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to list not only what currently enjoys consensus. The Plasma Universe is a notable scientific paradigm, as well as a cultural phenomenon. So you gotta cover it, whether you personally like it or not--and cover neutrally. --Leokor 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. Before, you seemed to be using the term "Plasma Universe" simply to refer to "all plasma phenomena in space", now you seem to be talking about something beyond that, a "notable scientific paradigm, as well as a cultural phenomenon". It would help this discussion if you would clearly say how you are using your terms. "Plasma Cosmology" is not easy to define either, but we have agreed here that this article is not about every aspect of plasmas in cosmology, but a roughly (!) coherent set that contradicts the established view. This seems to me like a reasonable, comprehensible, helpful, and neutral way to split up the topic. --Art Carlson 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, "Plasma Universe" does not refer to "all plasma phenomena in space." Some material from the following explanation may be used, not verbatim, as a seed for a future article.
Plasma Universe is a scientific paradigm applied to studying plasma phenomena in space, based on the assumption that properties of plasma are essentially the same everywhere. Its methodical approach is experiment-driven, including plasma laboratory experiments and their extrapolation by numerical simulation, as well as in situ experiments in space reachable by our spacecraft and the more traditional method of passive observation of distant phenomena. In formulating hypotheses based on the results of observations and experiments, as well as in building models or designing experiments to test them, the researchers don't limit themselves to (but don't exclude it, either) the traditional gravity-dominated modeling approach, but also take electromagnetic effects into account. These are not artificially limited to magnetic fields alone; instead, an equal importance is given to electric currents in space that generate magnetic fields (you'd think this shouldn't require a separate statement; indeed, it wouldn't have, if not for the current practices in astrophysics).
In short, Plasma Universe is to "all plasma phenomena in space" what Plasma Cosmology is to cosmology. Thus, Plasma Cosmology is a part of Plasma Universe. Thus, it makes sense to create a Wikipedia article about Plasma Universe itself, in which there would be a subsection titled "Plasma Cosmology," with a link to its main article--this one.
You say that "this article is not about every aspect of plasmas in cosmology." That may be so (though I wonder why). But there are aspects of cosmic plasma outside of cosmology. I suppose that, being active at Wikipedia, you know well enough what the word "cosmology" means. It's much easier to belittle Plasma Universe in the field of cosmology, for the following reasons, all of which primarily stem from the Plasma Universe's experiment-driven nature:
  • There is less room for experiment regarding what has happened long ago and far away. As a result, the Plasma Universe researches often lack the necessary data to make certain statements, with a proper degree of scientific rigor. On the other hand, the pure theoreticians on the traditional side are not reluctant at all to claim to have solved such-and-such problem by merely building a model, or even just formulating a hypothesis (as has occurred on some occasions).
  • The Plasma Universe paradigm calls for research developing in the direction from the current state backward, as opposed to the traditional models postulating knowledge about very distant times and moving on toward the present (the Actualistic vs. the Prophetic approach, as described by Alfven in http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/CosmologyAlfven.pdf). Thus, the traditional cosmological models are typically far more detailed (but not necessarily right) than their Plasma Universe counterparts.
Both factors result in the misleading perception that the traditional astrophysicists have the upper hand. However, there are other space phenomena, much closer at hand, where the Plasma Universe superiority can be more readily ascertained. Their exclusion from Wikipedia, in the form of a focused coverage under the common unifying Plasma Universe rubric, unfairly gives perceived advantage to the traditionalist side. The main reasons why the phenomena in the near space are more dangerous to the traditionalists include:
  • There is more room for experiment in near space. A single experiment can potentially destroy a most beautiful, but wrong, mathematical model. Someone said once (and I'll edit this part when I remember who) that, paraphrasing, one of the greatest tragedies of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact. Plasma Universe researches do not believe that the beauty of a theory is any indicator of its truth whatsoever.
  • In the near space, electromagnetic phenomena stare you right in the face. The closer we are to home, and to the present time, the more detailed are the Plasma Universe theories, while the traditional theories become more and more vague, usually having to change every single time a probe goes into space.
In the near space, perhaps the most dramatic success of a Plasma Universe theory has occurred in 1974, when our probes discovered, in situ, persistent Birkeland currents in the polar regions, thus resolving the longstanding (since 1951) Alfven vs. Chapman debate in favor of Alfven (posthumously for Chapman, and post-Nobel for Alfven). For more on this famous controversy, see the following historical essay:
Chapman and Alfvén: A Rigorous Mathematical Physicist Versus an Inspirational Experimental Physicist.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003EO290002.shtml
More recently, as a part of the SOWA (SOlar Wind and Atmosphere) program, a team of researchers has applied the geomagnetic data from the NASA database, for a period of solar minimum, to the state-of-the-art CCM (Chemical Climate Model) SOCOL--a combination of the Middle Atmosphere(MA)-ECHAM4 spectral General Circulation Model (GCM) with a modified version of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign atmospheric chemistry-transport model (CTM)--in order to test the effect of Joule heating on our atmosphere. Joule heating is one of the forms of electric heating, not by the Sun's electromagnetic radiation but by charged particles in the solar wind. The simulation was run for both an unaffected (control) model and for a model with included Joule heating. The results showed that, even at the solar minimum, Joule heating is comparable in magnitude with the solar UV absorption and stronger than the absorption in the visible spectrum.
The following three links include two articles, both published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics and available from the SOWA website, as well as the annual SOWA report for 2005. The first article describes the theoretical model, while the second one describes the simulation runs. The SOWA website also provides the FORTRAN code for the model, as well as the data, to everyone who wishes to take a look.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/eugene1560/sowa/y2005.phtml
L. N. Makarova, A. V. Shirochkov, A. P. Nagurny, E. Rozanov, W. Schmutz. Parameterization of the heating in the middle stratosphere due to solar wind-induced electric currents. Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics, vol. 66 (2004)
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/eugene1560/sowa/data.phtml
V. Zubov, E. Rozanov, A. Shirochkov, L. Makarova, T. Egorova, A. Kiselev, Yu. Ozolin, I. Karol, W. Schmutz. Modeling of Joule heating influence on the circulation and ozone concentration in the middle atmosphere. Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics, vol. 67 (2005)
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/eugene1560/sowa/simul.phtml
For more on Joule heating of planets, see:
C.G.A. Smith, S. Miller, A.D. Aylward. Magnetospheric energy inputs into the upper atmospheres of the giant planets. Annales Geophys. 23 (2005).
http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/1943/2005/angeo-23-1943-2005.pdf
R. Raghavarao, R. Sridharan, R. Suhasini. Joule heating due to vertical ion currents in the lower thermosphere over the dip equator. Earth Planets Space 50 (1998).
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5010/50100833.pdf
S.W. Bougher, J.H. Waite, T. Majeed, J.R. Murphy. Responses by the Mars and Jupiter Upper Atmospheres to External Forcings : Contrasts from TGCM Simulations. American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2004, abstract #SA51B-05.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSMSA51B..05B
R. J. Strangeway. Plasma waves and electromagnetic radiation at Venus and Mars. Adv. Space Research 33, Issue 11 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2003.08.040
K.D. Cole, W.R. Hoegy. Joule heating by AC electric fields in the ionosphere of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. 101, A2 (1996).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JA01853.shtml
K. D. Cole. Saturated heat conduction and Joule heating in the Venus ionosphere by 100 Hz fields. J. Geophys. Res. 106, A7 (2001).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/1999JA000006.shtml
Curiously, astronomers have even discovered a star-heating planet:
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18712&pid=1114
The thunderbolts.info site, which does much for the popularization of Plasma Universe, has this to say regarding Venus:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070202doubleeye.htm
(also, see http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMYGQEFWOE_index_0.html that the thunderbolts' TPOD is based on)
Plasma Universe research outside of the field of cosmology also includes studies of comets (just google, if you please, for +comet +"Alfven waves"). I have already mentioned that four comets have already been reached by our probes, and none proved to be an ice ball. The leading Plasma Universe hypothesis is that cometary tales are created by a strong plasma discharge. As a comet (especially, a long period comet) spends more time in the outer regions of the solar system, it becomes negatively charged. When it races toward the Sun, it passes very fast through the regions of an increasingly higher electric potential. As a result, it discharges electrons and negative ions (which have been measured) into its environment. The very high collimation of the tail is due to the electric pinch, on one hand, and the repulsive force between the oppositely directed electric currents (the tail and the solar wind ions around it). It would have been impossible for neutral gas. Every planet, including Earth, has what's usually called a magnetotail, invisible by human eye. Comets, however, move on a far more eccentric orbits, which creates a much stronger electric stress, and thus a visual display.
The following presentation includes an account of specific predictions about what would happen if a copper projectile is fired at the Comet Tempel 1. These were publicly announced prior to the Deep Impact event, and were successfully confirmed.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Among other things we're interested in is the ongoing electric discharge between Jupiter and Io. When Cornell astrophysicist Thomas Gold proposed in the journal Science (Nov, 1979) that the "volcanoes" on Io were actually plasma discharge plumes, he was answered in the same journal by Gene Shoemaker, who argued that an electric discharge would be extremely hot--much hotter than lava--and that sensitive earth-based instruments have not detected such temperatures. Years later, the Galileo mission did bring instruments much closer to Io. But they were designed to measure temperatures on the scale normally produced by volcanoes. At the areas of discharge, they maxed out, unable to report the actual temperature. But the debate was never resumed. Another point of reference: the "volcanoes" on Io happen to move across the surface. Walking volcanoes, anyone?
Similar electric discharges take place between other giant gas planets and their satellites, but not as powerful as the one between Jupiter and Io.
Anyhow, there is a lot more to say, but enough about the scientific aspect. You have asked me about Plasma Universe as a cultural phenomenon. So let me say a few words about the Plasma Universe people.
We're a diverse lot. Unlike the insular astrophysical community, the Plasma Universe community is very accepting of outsiders--as is the plasma physicists community in general. Many important discoveries in plasma science have been made by outsiders; that is, specialists from outside the field--beginning with Irving Langmuir, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, who gave plasma its very name, due to a certain similarity with blood plasma. Just as blood plasma surrounds and coagulates around a foreign body, so does electric plasma form double layers of electric charge wherever its physical properties change. This is what makes it so difficult to measure voltage in plasma, so that Langmuir probes had to be invented. Langmuir discovered double layers too, borrowing a term for them from surface chemistry (he is a father of surface chemistry, after all). Most of the potential differential occurs inside these double layers, due to high conductivity of plasma. But it is not infinite, or else the double layers would not have existed. Interestingly, many traditional astrophysicists seem to think that double layers don't exist--or else, magnetic fields would not be frozen into plasma.
So, yes, we have our doors open to all kinds of people: plasma physicists, specialists from other fields, engineers, and supporters from outside science. The Plasma Universe community is not exclusive; rather, it's very inclusive. Besides doing serious science, many Plasma Universe scientists and supporters do much to popularize Plasma Universe. Don Scott's book, for example, as well as the recently published book by David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill properly belong to the genre of popular science books. Several websites, including but not limited to thunderbolts.info and holoscience.com, do much in that area as well. I don't see why traditional astronomers may have their brand of popular science, and we may not. Nor do I see why no information about them may be posted here, at Wikipedia. After all, it provides information not only--and even not so much--to serious scientists as to the general public. Thus, I find links to popular science literature more than appropriate.
And, of course, I find it appropriate to establish a new, more encompassing article at Wikipedia about Plasma Universe in general, not limited to cosmology. --Leokor 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote is Thomas Huxley. I'm not sure why we have no Plasma Universe article at all, but it has certainly been debated here, here and here for instance, and you might want to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, in particular the "Be concise" part. Art LaPella 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Electric Universe is another term for Plasma Universe, used by the Thunderbolts group to underscore that it has to do not only with magnetic fields in space but also with electric currents in space. The debate logs you have linked to are full of misunderstanding and/or misinformation and claims of it being a pseudoscience based on nothing more than hearsay. But what amazes me most is the fervent zeal of certain people for the deletion crusade over and over and over. "Carthago non delenda est." The people that use the Electric Universe term put much of largely unappreciated effort into popularizing the entire corpus of the Plasma Universe theories and ideas. What original research? They had the full right to use references to Alfven, Peratt, and others--because Electric Universe is just a different name for Plasma Universe. What a shameful example of censorship.
I hope that my not-so-concise discourse has helped to put things into their proper context. Providing definitions for such big things is not as easy task and takes some space, especially in view of potential misunderstandings. Besides, someone would just keep nibbling at every term I didn't fully explain in my otherwise terse responses. --Leokor 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The most fervent people on both sides have quit or been banned and this is a lull, but I expect it to go on and on. I myself got somewhat fervent at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (note several subpages linked from its first paragraph and their associated talk pages), objecting to simple malarkey rather than the scientific details of plasma cosmology/universe. Art LaPella 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to answer at length, Leokor, because I have a daytime job and a family. -- Your definition of "Plasma Universe" is not very helpful. If I see an idea, how do I tell if it belongs to Plasma Universe or not? (1) Because it applies experimental results? (2) Because it applies numerical simulations? (3) Because it contradicts accepted explanations? The first two characteristics apply to much or most of conventional plasma astrophysics, and the third hardly defines a "scientific paradigm". If they are synonymous, perhaps it is better to use the term "Electric Universe", to avoid confusion with conventional plasma astrophysics. -- If you want to try (again) to get an article on the Electric Universe, you will have to show notability. For scientific notability, you will need a significant number of peer-reviewed publications from multiple institutes, critical responses to those publications, and/or mention in secondary sources such as textbooks or reviews. For sociological notability, you will need, at a minimum, significant coverage in the popular press from multiple sources. I strongly recommend that you "pick your fights". You will be most successful if you start with small changes for which you can make a very strong case. --Art Carlson 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you see an idea, how do you tell if it belongs to the traditional astrophysics or not? I'll tell you how it's been handled by the traditional astrophysicists so far. During the Alfven vs. Chapman debate, Alfven's model of the magnetosphere was considered outside the field. Alfven papers on the subject were rejected by peer review on the grounds that they contradicted the established knowledge as presented by Chapman (I kid you not). As soon as truth was discovered in an experimental way beyond doubt, the idea was quickly incorporated into the canon. Some astrophysicists may not even recall that it ever belonged to Plasma Universe. The original Big Bang model didn't mention any magnetic fields. Only when it became impossible to deny the magnetic fields' existence, was the model amended to bring them in. But Alfven conjectured galactic-scale magnetic fields in the 30s, long before the space age. These days, the traditionalists still keep claiming that comets are balls of ice. Experimental evidence keeps mounting that they are not, with no experiment in favor. Guess what's gonna happen when, inevitably, the traditionalists will realize that, after all, comets are not balls of ice? They will claim the discovery as theirs, publish papers, totally ignore any contribution from those who are now fighting tooth and nail for the acceptance of this idea, and pretend as if they knew it all along!
The problem is not the criteria for recognizing an idea as a part of Plasma Universe. You approach the issue from a wrong perspective. Plasma Universe is not a collection of ideas. It is paradigm from which ideas can be derived. And, like it or not, but even if the traditionalists keep co-opting Plasma Universe's successes, they'll never accept the paradigm that generated them. The moment they do, Plasma Universe becomes not only mainstream in plasma physics, but also mainstream in astrophysics. Guess what? It will still have a historical identity.
The way you approach this, Plasma Universe--or Plasma Cosmology--would always remain relegated, at Wikipedia, to a set of ideas not accepted by mainstream astrophysicists. The moment an idea is accepted, you'd just edit the article. That way, no amount of arguing would persuade you ever to remove the fringe science label--because you have set up the article to be that way by definition. This is unacceptable. This is what was done to Electric Universe. And this is what you're now trying to do again with a potential proposal (which I haven't yet quite pushed out in the open) to create a Plasma Universe article, from which all other related articles would be linked to, and quite unlike what you have seen in the removed Electric Universe article.
As to the incremental changes here, I will shortly start suggesting some. I've got a day job and a family myself.
--Leokor 22:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My family is on vacation, so: This sounds like a logical fallacy called equivocation. You showed me Plasma Universe was used by Alfven to mean any science emphasizing plasma, so today it is sometimes used to include mainstream plasma physics, although mainstream plasma physics itself doesn't use the phrase to my knowledge. Plasma Universe can also be used to mean alleged plasma phenomena rejected by mainstream science, often including Velikovsky to some extent. If you get to use the same phrase to mean either of the above, then you can "prove" that it isn't fringe science, just by switching to definition number 1. But we already have a plasma physics article, so what's the problem? Quick, switch to definition number 2. Art LaPella 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Equivocation is what the traditional astrophysics indulges in, when it wants to co-opt experimentally proven Plasma Universe research while at the same time continuing to ignore or vehemently oppose those theories that endanger their gravity-dominated paradigm. You suggest that we would do the same, switching between the two kinds of theories wherever expedient. Not so. We embrace them both. If you follow the line of my arguments, you will see that, from the very beginning, I've always struggled for a unified perspective. Neither do we want to deny the Plasma Universe heritage of many theories accepted by the mainstream astrophysics, nor do we shun the controversial ideas that are yet to be accepted. They're all part of a single, unified view of the universe.
That very specific unified perspective is, perhaps, what really distinguishes the Plasma Universe ideas. The traditional astrophysics also has its own paradigm, dominated by gravity. This results in very different views of the same phenomena. Where the traditionalists see isolated bodies in vacuum, mostly at equilibrium, that can be studied on their own as closed systems with a very limited number of externally influenced parameters (heating by sunlight and orbital dynamics, for Earth; hardly anything for the Sun, etc.), Plasma Universe scientists see bodies interconnected by means of electric currents in space filled with plasma, in a universe 99% made of plasma, and hardly ever at equilibrium. The Birkeland currents that drive galaxy formation in the Peratt's model flow through all stars in the galaxies, including our Sun (btw, did you know the Sun has polar jets?), interacting with the solar circuit, which in turn interacts with planetary magnetospheres, which have complex circuitry of their own. The solar electric field makes comets flare with plasma discharge; the Earth's electric field makes lightnings possible (with separation of charge across great distances that cannot be generated by atmospheric friction nor by any other mechanical means on the energy scale available in our atmosphere). Electric fields inside the magnetospheres of gas giants create massive electric discharges between the planets and their satellites (e.g. Jupiter-Io and Saturn-Enceladus). Going up in scale, galaxies form in string along the Birkeland currents, where those currents intersect the double layers between plasma cells with different physical characteristics. This tendency of plasma to self-organized into cellular and filamentary structures, naturally creates the large-scale structure of walls and voids.
Why do I enumerate these? In order to demonstrate that they all are parts of the same big picture of the universe. One cannot be denied without affecting the others. From the serious research published in peer review journals (e.g., take a look at the soon-to-be-released Seventh Special Issue of IEEE Trans. Space Sci: http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/SpecialIssuesUpcoming/SpacePlasmas.html), to less rigorous hypotheses (but no less likely to be true, merely awaiting further research) as those presented in The Pictures Of the Day (TPODs) at thunderbolts.info, all of them are informed by this single, unified perspective.
The traditional astrophysics has a unified perspective of their own, which informs their own serious as well as less rigorous hypotheses. Allow me to offer just one example. Consider the image and the caption at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010112.html. In a gravity-dominated universe, the only way for galaxies to interact is by gravity; so when one sees a long and thin pipeline of material extending from one galaxy to wrap around another, a traditional astronomer has no choice but assume that a collision had taken place. Note how the highly speculative explanation (I really want to see how gravity could possibly accomplish that) is presented with air of certainty. To a Plasma Universe scientist, however, the same image brings the intergalactic Birkeland currents into mind. Whereas the current density in one of the galaxies' spiral arms has already reached the threshold for a nearly simultaneous starburst, the other one is still waiting for that to happen; the wrapped portion of the pipeline simply follows the spiral arms-to-be.
A similar dichotomy can be demonstrated in many other cases. Where a traditional astrophysicist sees gravity at play, a plasma scientist sees plasma shaping the universe. There is no denying the existence of unifying--and opposing--motifs behind these. The willy-nilly acceptance of some plasma-driven theories by the mainstream astrophysics does not preclude a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the universe. This alone defines the two approaches in relation to each other. The conflicting paradigms are not amenable to simple definitions as Aristotelian categories, but perhaps can be understood in terms of Wittgenstein categories.
By the way, for some history behind the Plasma Universe paradigm, take a look at this, from the Peratt's website: http://plasmascience.net/tpu/people/history.html
--Leokor 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I remember we got here from a position like this: "...no amount of arguing would persuade you ever to remove the fringe science label--because you have set up the article to be that way by definition. This is unacceptable." If we define Plasma Universe to "embrace" mainstream plasma physics like Art Carlson's along with others like Leokor, then its article would describe a majority opinion along with a minority opinion. And since no one has made a semantic argument distinguishing a minority from a fringe, such an article would include fringe science. If you know what Wittgenstein categories are (I'd have to look it up) then I really think you're getting this, but that's what this page has been like for years. Art LaPella 05:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I read and re-read this, wondering what makes you see this as a problem. Majority opinion vs. minority opinion is what political parties and organized religions are interested in. What does science have to do with it? Theories get born and die. Some move into the position of being considered more or less accurately representing the real world phenomena, though a vast majority of them eventually give way to other theories. Each theory has its own domain of application. Etc. Coexistence of several alternative theories to explain the same phenomena is not merely acceptable, it's desirable. The more options on the table, the more fruitful is the brainstorming. This is what happens in all applied sciences, as well as in most of the "less-applied" ones. Astronomy and astrophysics belong to the very few that don't seem to get it. For them, existence of an established, immutable canon is paramount. Considering how little room is there for experiments regarding the phenomena from long ago and/or far away, you'd think that there would be fewer seemingly "settled" subjects and more options on the table. But, apparently, this is not the case. Which makes me wonder just how much of science they are. Is scientific method even possible without experiment?
It is perfectly normal for a field of science to have generally accepted as well as emerging theories (most of which may never gain acceptance, but some will). This makes a healthy science. Science has never been in the heresy eradication business. Real science always welcomes more opinions. So I find it perfectly acceptable to have a mix. --Leokor 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course my point was about a "fringe science label", apart from the question of how much attention to give minority opinions. Art LaPella 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the term "minority opinion" applies in science. Science is neither religion nor philosophy, both of which deal with experimentally unverifiable knowledge. In science, there is no such thing as orthodoxy--at least, ideally, without science being politicized, 'cause politics is yet another field very much concerned with opinions. In science, everything is decided by experiment. There are theories that work (so far), there are those that have been falsified, and there are those for which experimental data has not yet been obtained. Theories come and go. In a normal brainstorming process, the lifetime of most ideas is very short. But nowadays, researchers grow timid, afraid to offer an idea that may prove to be false. There is no shame in that. We have become too politicized. Consensus is what is reached at church councils. Science is not supposed to be a matter of opinion. Nor should it be policed. --Leokor 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I actually kind of like the article I have bashed above, under "Comparison to mainstream cosmology." The idea was very inventive and rather bold. Even if it's wrong, it does provide some intellectual stimulus. In many cases, thinking about a wrong but unusual idea can even lead to new discoveries, because it may open a new angle, even if the first try has been unsuccessful. The more ideas, the faster is the progress. That's how science is supposed to work. It's not a canon of established knowledge that must be guarded and preserved. It's fluid. --Leokor 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is policed: see WP:FRINGE. But my oft-repeated point is simpler: it's OK to label a sufficiently small minority opinion as fringe science, no matter whose ox gets gored. Honesty is the best policy. Neither Wikipedia nor science works without it. Art LaPella 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is policed for notoriety of the subjects covered; it has nothing to do with science. Quoting from WP:FRINGE:
"Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible.
[...]
In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual.
[...]
Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability.
[...]
While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
[...]
One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research."
Even a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically exclude the subject (contrary to what Art Carlson was claiming earlier). Plasma Universe research has been published not only in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (the seventh special issue on the subject is coming out this month), but also in a number of other peer-reviewed journals, some of which you can find in the references I have posted on this discussion page. This alone should be enough to qualify for scientific notability. The mainstream institutions that support Plasma Universe include IEEE, the largest scientific institution on the planet, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Moreover, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to demarcate between mainstream and non-mainstream (as evidenced from the quotes above). Especially when the field of study such as Plasma Universe includes both. Indeed, the very distinction between mainstream and non-mainstream does not belong to science, but rather to the considerations of notability. In every field of study, new theories are popping up even as we speak. Until they become accepted, are they to be considered non-mainstream? If so, then every science, including the traditional astrophysics, is a mix.
By the Wikipedia's own publication guidelines, the Plasma Universe article ought to exist. --Leokor 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
As to science proper, acceptance is decided by experimental evidence. Astrophysics is one of the very few fields of science where the success of a theory is judged primarily on the basis of whether other astrophysicists find it acceptable. This is a major problem with primarily theoretical sciences that have limited room for experiment. Experimental sciences and engineering are not at all like that. As a simple lithmus test, tell me: have you ever heard of non-mainstream or fringe science in, say, the field of nanotechnology?
One may even wonder if "theoretical science" is not a misnomer. There can be no science without scientific method, and that implies experiment. If a theory is accepted on the basis of opinion instead of experiment, then it becomes a matter of faith, and thus not science. --Leokor 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Parts of the above are the right questions for Wikipedia politics, but I think previous precedent will at least rule out an article anywhere near as sympathetic as the previous one, and probably rule out an article supported by more archive files full of passionate debate. The answer to "new theories are popping up...are they to be considered non-mainstream?" is yes - they shouldn't be published in Wikipedia until experts have distinguished breakthroughs from zillions of crackpots like this one. Art LaPella 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What! Wikipedia describes everything from UFOs to Astrology to Time Cube to Santa Clause to Cold fusion. If no-one describes them as crackpot, we don't pretend they might be. Description is non-judgmental. As far as I am concerned, string theory is pseudoscience; but if no-one has described it as such, then I don't say so. We don't have to criticize the Da Vinci code to describe it. As far as the Plasma Universe is concerned, the Space Science Institute, NASA, the Association of Science and Technology Centers, and the National Science Foundation, consider it mainstream [41], enough to mount a nationwide exhibition that ran for nearly a decade until 2001. The ONLY criticism for the Plasma Universe comes from one Wikipedia editor who has produced no citations to support his position. --74.43.236.132 00:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
We pretend, or better, assume theories might be crackpot long enough to explain why we have various policies requiring notability. It doesn't matter much how I explain Wikipedia policies because I won't be the one enforcing them, and just shouting them down won't work. I don't understand "one Wikipedia editor" - the article was deleted because that was the consensus of many Wikipedians, and zillions more words and citations have been produced on various talk pages and their archives on this dead horse topic. Art LaPella 01:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No go. If the "paradigm" of Electric Universe is simply "Consider both electromagnetic and gravitational explanations as appropriate. Scale laboratory results up in an appropriate way. Use appropriate numerical simulations." - then it is indistinguishable from mainstream astrophysics. If Electric Universe is distinguished simply by the mantras of "Birkeland currents. Double layers. 99% plasma. Bold and open-minded outsiders vs. dogmatic and elitist Big-Bangers." - then it cannot be called scientific, much less a paradigm. If that's your best shot, then I stand by the current situation that Plasma Cosmology, although it is borderline, has just enough representation in the scientific literature that an encyclopedic article is possible, but the Electric Universe is too ill-defined and unimportant for an article. (Without wishing to denigrate your personal religious views.) --Art Carlson 07:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you leave my religious views alone. You don't know what they are, and I'm not about to tell you (it would be irrelevant to the subject, besides). And let's keep religion separate from science. Being passionate about a scientific theory has nothing to do with religion.
Above, I have given you a general picture of how Plasma Universe is defined in relation to the traditional gravity-dominated approach. Plasma Universe theories are part of the same framework. Do you want me to write a treatise that would carefully define that framework and accurately place the theories within in and in relation to each other, as well as where the stand in relation to the traditional framework? It would take both scientific and historical analysis, resulting in a work that'd definitely be not concise enough for this discussion page. If we're to be terse in explaining our positions, then please make an effort to get those terse explanations. Was my previous post (04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)) not clear enough? --Leokor 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for passion. Just please keep in mind that it easily gets in the way of writing from a neutral point of view. And please do not write a treatise. I believe that I understand your position well enough. I disagree with it. --Art Carlson 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but this is not the article itself; it's the discussion area. Here, we're supposed to be opinionated. As a matter of fact, I can handle a neutral point of view very well, when called for--and even points of view diametrically opposed to my own (I've done some really weird ones). I've never tried non-fiction, though. On the other hand, fiction can do very nicely for sociological notoriety. Well, when (not if) we decide to create a Plasma Universe article, I would be more than happy to oblige. --Leokor 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough, Leokor. This page is for discussing improvements to this article only. Please limit your comments here to that purpose. If you think that a new article has a place in Wikipedia, please first read carefully the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept) (and related pages). If you start an article that has the same faults as that one did, your article will be speedily deleted. --Art Carlson 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this all been gone over a hundred times before? Please read the talk page archives, especially the dialog between myself and people like ScienceApologist. And Leokor as I described previously cosmology is not only about the study of the origins, there is a specific term for that part of cosmology. No need to create a plasma universe article, the Plasma Cosmology article should simply be restored to it's proper inclusion of material, rather than focusing only on what Alfven thought. As it is the current form of the article is ScienceApologists version, and any change from it was unacceptable. I quit because of the blatant elitism and censorship imposed on this article. It really is a shame that the article represents less than 10% of what Plasma Cosmology considers. I love the talk about how this stuff is mainstream... remember the description by that historian who explained that the major parts of the paradigm are being assimilated into the standard cosmologies? Anyhow, no need to start another article, if the definitions are properly understood one sees that plasma cosmology is the correct place to include ideas involving the "plasma universe" which as I stated before is simply a popularization term. --Ionized

There's no need to argue what should and should not be included in an article on Plasma Cosmology / Plasma Universe, as there are several peer reviewed summaries. See for example, "Plasma Universe resources" --74.105.139.54 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to mainstream cosmology: Synthesis

This sections includes references that support the "mainstream" statements, but do not support the criticisms against "plasma cosmology"; consequently the section is a "synthesis" as described in WP:NOR. --Applecola 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to give some examples to explain this tagging. 24.199.99.169 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
None of the citations provided compare Plasma Cosmology with "mainstream cosmology". Take for example, the very first statement, that "Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models". Where can I check this?
If one of the editors has drawn these conclusions, without citations, then it is "synthesis" as defined by WP:NOR. It would be easier to say what the Plasma Universe has described, or has successfully predicted, rather than apparently guessing what it has not. --Applecola 15:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You can check the first statement by comparing the plasma cosmology papers and the mainstream papers as cited in the article. It isn't a synthesis: it is a statement of fact that plasma cosmology is developed in less detail. In fact, it is plainly admitted to by the advocates themselves. 128.59.169.46 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of that plain admission: "Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these [alternative] theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding." [42] Art LaPella 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The citation seems to support the first part of the first sentence, but should perhaps be attributed to say something like: "Plasma cosmologists believe that their field of research has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology"[Citation). The rest of the first statement, "lacks many of the key predictions..." etc is unsupported by the citation, as is the rest of the paragraph. Also note that the article seems to repeat this information in the last statement of the introduction, where the same citation is given. --Applecola 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a scientist but I've watched this go round and round often enough I think I can predict the answer. "lacks many of the key predictions..." appears to be a summary of the rest of the paragraph, which is supported by succeeding paragraphs, whose main point is supported in more detail at the Lambda-CDM model article and its references. Art LaPella 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Lambda-CDM model article says nothing about plasma cosmology. How can we verify a comparison? --Applecola 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The question was how "...key predictions..." is supported, and the Lambda-CDM model article is a key prediction. If you are arguing that the Lambda-CDM model is accepted by plasma cosmology, then perhaps you could show me where. That would certainly be news to me. It would be difficult to show citations for plasma cosmology's opinion on a subject they don't like to discuss. For instance, [43] devotes a page to debunking the Big Bang without mentioning one of the mainstream's favorite arguments. If you Google "CDM model" with "plasma cosmology", the results are dominated by anti-plasma cosmology pages like this encyclopedia article [44], which take it for granted that plasma cosmology and Lambda-CDM are opposites. Art LaPella 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
When I think about it, disparaging references to "free parameters" such as the first paragraph of [45] indirectly acknowledge that the extent of the agreement of the Lambda-CDM model with observations, is a prediction of mainstream cosmology, and not of plasma cosmology. Art LaPella 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Paying close attention to the fact that plasma cosmology is fringe means that we need to accommodate the rationale for why mainstream cosmology is accepted over all others (and that includes plasma cosmology). Unwarranted synthesis would be statements that tend to draw novel conclusions. The conclusions that plasma cosmology is a fringe subject is not novel nor is it disputed by its adherents. ScienceApologist 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading WP:NOR again, I see no mention of novel synthesis (and who defines novel?). It does say, "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."[46].
A citation now lets me verify that plasma cosmology proponents write that "Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology"[[47]]
But where do I check that plasma cosmology "lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models"? I want to read for myself whether it is "many", "a lot", or maybe "some". And I want to find out what the key features are, and whether they are relevant. The only source is the article itself and the editor who wrote it. --Applecola 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The sources you are asking for are the current models, as Art LaPella pointed out above. Check Lambda-CDM. It's not a synthesis to point out that, for example, plasma cosmology papers do not account for the detailed WMAP variables. ScienceApologist 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I can not find in your source(s), mention of plasma cosmology; I can not deduce from your source what plasma cosmology does, or does not say.
I would like to verify for myself that "plasma cosmology papers do not account for the detailed WMAP variables". I also want to check what is mentioned about plasma cosmology and WMAP to make sure the context is justified. Your source adequately verifies the standard cosmology position; it does not support the plasma cosmology statements. --Applecola 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology is niche field. As such, sources dismiss it with the rest of non-standard cosmologies when criticism of it is offered. Plasma cosmology is criticized specifically by Peebles in his work. Moreover, the plasma cosmology proponent Eric Lerner has only mentioned WMAP in the form of arguing for a quadrupole alignment of plasma magnetic fields: it had nothing to do with any of the WMAP variables. The standard cosmology position is opposed to plasma cosmology by virtue of its opposition. ScienceApologist 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdented) Excellent some progress. Please cite Peeble's publication/paper and page number so other editors can check the criticism. OK, Lerner does not mention the WMAP variables. That still leaves an unspecified number of publications to check to see whether they also don't mention the WMAP variables. --Applecola 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Peebles critique is in his book on cosmology. ScienceApologist 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You can check the latest IEEE transactions edition. None of the papers there mention them either. Since there is really just about two plasma cosmology advocates at this point, that finishes the job. ScienceApologist 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You could be more helpful with the reference. Are you referring to his 1993 book, Principles of Physical Cosmology? This predates WMAP by 8 years, and obviously predicts any work on standard and plasma cosmologies after this date? I have no problem with Peebles criticism being includes, as longs as it is (a) attributed (b) dated (c) and it gives an accurate criticism; obviously they don't support the statements about WMAP, and so I am worried that the book does not support any of the other statements.
No editor can check whether any IEEE, or any other papers, do NOT mention something. That is not verifiable. --Applecola 14:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You have mixed up a lot of the argumentation. Let me break it down for you:
  1. Plasma cosmology is old: it's been around in a meaningful form since the 1950s. The most famous version of it relies on Klein and Alfven's ambiplasma suggestions. The idea stemming from this has been refuted by Peebles.
  2. Eric Lerner is a skilled writer. His book piqued a lot of layperson interest but, not unlike Don Scott's latest attempt, failed to offer any meaningful alternatives. It was a work in pseudoskepticism mostly and basically evinced a lot of ignorance about the subject of cosmology (some of which is archived at this talkpage and others quoted directly at Eric Lerner). He continues to promote ideas related to "plasma cosmology" but has not proposed a coherent alternative to the Big Bang.
  3. Anthony Peratt now has been very careful on his webpage to point out that his plasma universe ideas are separate from many of the other ideas currently floating around on the internet. As such, his ideas have to be judged as an independent opinion.
  4. We therefore have to consider: is there a research community of plasma cosmology? Does "plasma cosmology" as a coherent discipline exist today or is it simply people who are fans of Alfven being whimsical? The best we can come up with is a non-standard cosmology conference held in Portugal, one published open letter in New Scientist, and the periodic transactions from IEEE, the latest of which came out in 2007. None of these sources represents a coherent and cogent research community nor a unified proposal. We can contrast this with something like MOND where there actually are numerous groups working under the same paradigmatic assumptions.
I am not convinced the current article is excellent, but it does a fair job at describing the current status of plasma cosmology. The only problem may be that the article by virtue of its attempts to integrate many disparate ideas which refer to Alfven's original proposal actually synthesizes plasma cosmology into a coherent research group rather than treating it as the Balkanized and fractionalized attempts of scientists and engineers on the fringes of astronomy and cosmology. What is plainly not original research are the comments that plasma cosmology is not accepted by the community and the comments to the effect that plasma cosmology has major flaws. These are easily seen in citations.
ScienceApologist 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You bring up many interesting, and perhaps valid points. But let's nail the Peebles' citation first. (A) Are you referring to his 1993 book, Principles of Physical Cosmology? (b) I note it is cited once; What page number or section should be referred to? --Applecola 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
P. 207 ScienceApologist 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Undented) Thank you. Fortunately Peebles' 1993 book, Principles of Physical Cosmology is fully searchable at Amazon.com, and the section you mention starting on page 207 is viewable too.

I note that Peebles specifically refers to the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds. I can see no problem including the criticism in principle, as long as it is attributed to Peebles, and it is noted that he is basing his criticism on work that first appeared 36 - 41 years ago, which has subsequently been developed by others. It also seems logical to place this in the section on "Alfvén and Klein cosmologies".

Coming back to the section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology", the use of Peebles does not appear to support the statement in question. Peebles does not mention "plasma filaments" in the section starting on page 207, and I can find no mention of filaments anywhere else in the book? Perhaps you had another source in mind? --Applecola 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with your claim that Klein and Alfven's model has been developed by others subsequently. You will need to support this supposition with a source. Peebles in the very next section after Plasma Universe refutes the filamentation points. Pages 209 to 224. ScienceApologist 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If Plasma Cosmology has been developed subsequently, then this must be supported by citations. Peebles' next section after "Plasma Cosmology" is on the Fractal Universe; I don't think this has anything to do with Plasma Cosmology? --Applecola 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It does. The fragmentation hypothesis is modeled as a fractal as opposed to hierarchical models of standard cosmology. ScienceApologist 13:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Jiminezwaldorf has been placing the {{NPOV}} tag on this page. I ask him to explain what the NPOV dispute is here. ScienceApologist 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We are in dispute, there is no consensus that it has been resolved, so the tag seems appropriate? --Applecola 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is a plausible reason for a dispute tag, not an NPOV tag. NPOV means that all points of view haven't been fairly represented. It's true that the article presents mainly a mainstream point of view, but it's also true that a mainstream point of view is similarly near-universal among professional scientists. Note that WP:NPOV includes WP:Undue weight. Art LaPella 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If the neutrality of the article is disputed, then a non-NPOV tag may be appropriate. I have no objection to an NPOV tag, or a Dispute tag. But I do dispute the accuracy, and believe that the neutrality of this article is not sound. --Applecola 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In order for there to be a controversy, there needs to be evidence that there is a dispute. In short, there needs to be a proposal either for a wording change, an addition, or a deletion that is offered with the justification that the current version violates NPOV or factual accuracy. So far, I have seen nothing of the sort. I have seen Applecola claiming that the citations offered don't support the statements in the article, but that's neither a factual dispute nor a neutrality dispute. ScienceApologist 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question marks

Applecola has used question marks at least 4 times where most of us would use periods (that's "full stops" if you're British). That wouldn't matter, except that it gives him one more resemblance to User:Iantresman. Art LaPella 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've looked through User:Iantresman's contributions on this page, and the use of question marks looks standard to me, following questions. We're both British, which is another similarity, and both are critical of this article, and both appear to have an interest in the accuracy of this article, and the subject. So I would have to agree with resemblances.
It's ironic that my only contribution to the article was a criticism of the subject from Peebles,(properly and accurately referenced), which is one more than the number of acknowledged successful predictions.
But having made some progress, I'm not surprised at the change of tact, seeing the comments from Jiminezwaldorf above. The editing environment is not constructive, and not particularly friendly. So much for working together and improving articles. I will leave other to finish the work. --Applecola 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't objected to re-entry thru the front door, but I would object to sneaking in the back door. Art LaPella 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, my question mark argument is unconvincing because User:Mgmirkin used question marks in the same way. But I still wonder how Applecola got so much knowledge of Wikipedia procedure in his very first edit and sixth edit. Art LaPella 05:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Alfven never refered to paradigm shifts regarding cosmology

Oh wait, yes he did. Stumbled across this abstract of a paper which I had read many years ago wherein Alfven declares again (as he did in his book Cosmic Plasma) that a paradigm shift is necessary. He iterates all the arguments I have made here in the past (which I derived from reading him and doing my own studies.) http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1982/T2A/002 I also wan't to commend the people that have worked hard on the Plasma wiki page, as that is coming along well enough. It is a shame that this page will never be given the proper treatment, but it is good to know that there exists at least some proper information about plasma here on wiki. Don't have my login info at the moment as I'm at work, but this is Ionized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.26.4 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peebles quote

The Peebles quote is inadequately sourced. It should have page numbers. Also, how does plasma cosmology predict the CBR would be, and how does it not fit the observed? What "results" is he referring to? This quote is lacking. 141.154.59.135 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix the quote? Otherwise I think it should be removed or tagged. ABlake 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The page number is provided. ScienceApologist 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Peratt's galactic simulations

Why has mention of Peratt's simulations been removed, in particular the illustration (permission for the use of which was obtained from him)? Jon (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it did not receive any recognition or outside source commentary. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It did. They just laregly rejected it due to the EM force needed on stars being untenable. This fact should be included. Adam 86.163.136.94 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Facts? Include facts? But that would show the tenability of plasma cosmology, and the mainstream status quo followers who are here purposely to prevent that, would have a fit. Ionized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.178.165 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is Wiki...

Sharp discussions, no changes in the article, then someone states "there is no dispute anymore". No need of more words. Yes, because people are not payed to deal with Wiki "masters of puppets". When the going gets tought, Wiki lined up as everyone. And more, they pretend everybody agrees. Oh, so THIS is Wiki.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of citations

I notice that the paragraph: "Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models[citation needed]. In mainstream cosmology, detailed simulations of the correlation function of the universe, primordial nucleosynthesis, and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, based on the principles of standard cosmology and a handful of free parameters, have been made and compared with observations, including non-trivial consistency checks. Plasma cosmology generally provides qualitative descriptions and no systematic explanation for the standard features of mainstream cosmological theories[citation needed]."

has been without citations now for some time along with clims in this section. To stop it sounding like opinion and original research can we find some sources for it? Really2012back (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually do citations (the scientists here normally cover that), but doesn't cosmologystatement.org cover the main point? "Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding..." says the same thing with an opposite spin to it - of course plasma cosmology hasn't been thought out at the same level of detail as the Big Bang. The disputed paragraph also has some description of the Lambda-CDM model, so if you want citations for that I suppose we could find them in that article. This quote from http://bigbangneverhappened.org, referring to plasma cosmology, may also be helpful (if you don't ask me to explain it too much!) "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy,..." Art LaPella (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It does change the slant of the section completely and really needs looking at Art - infact a very good quote. You have actually made me re-look at the entire section and looking at its made me think the entire thing needs reworking. I am aware that this will make me unpopular with SA, etc but it looks - following a brief review - to be full of original research rather then direct research which compares the two theories.

For example:

"For example, the standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on dark matter collecting into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.[17] Recent simulations show agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-body cosmological simulations of the Lambda-CDM model.[18] Most astrophysicists accept dark matter as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models.[19]

Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by plasma filamentation proposals.[20] The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, corresponds well to the mainstream picture."

All of this contains "information" that may help to contradict parts of Plasma cosmology but does not come from research which actually compares them. All it presently does is say that the editors of the article believe it is unworkable becaause... Under wiki guidelines this is original research and should not be included. Personally I have little opinion about the plasma theory - it actually bores me a tad - but I am keen to see that it is represented correctly. I need to go to bed now but would like to hear other thoughts on this. Considering how far from mainstream theories that it is - although oddly not an unworkable theory - I am surprised that the editors cannot find sources that compare them directly. the trouble with the way it is writen at the moment - or at least cited - is that it leaves to open to pov countering the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ScienceApologist, but if you call it "original research" then don't you have to say something about [17], [18], [19] and [20]? It has often been pointed out that there are few sources comparing plasma cosmology and mainstream cosmology directly, other than pro-plasma cosmology sources, because mainstream scientists would rather discuss what they consider to be real. But the "Further reading" section links one such source by Ned Wright. Do you think we should quote him? Other than that, we have the existing references strewn throughout this oft-disputed article. Art LaPella (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I really should be asleep :-P. I wouldnt disagree about other refernces in the article. I am aware of the argument with "fringe" theories about lack of established comparisons. The problem is that if an area is controversial - someone in the established" field will have published something. In this case it doesn't have to be experimental research obviously - but someone notable in the field. Lets be honesest Plasma theory is not as fringe as this article might make it out to be and it certainly isn't a pseudoscience. I have seen the "mainstream doesn't take it seriously so no research/comments exist about because it is ignored" argument elsewhere in wiki. It is then used by those critical to post their own views based on what they think is correct - supporting this with only partly related data. However, the problem with this it can be just as easy to pull out some research which will appear to support the alternate theory - meaning that it is very easy to POV an article depending on the majority editors POV. I have seen this time and time again on what I consider articles full of pseudoscience but where the strongest editors are those "pro" the "loony" theory. There really are some outrageous articles in WIKI using this argument. This is why the "no original research" rule exists. Now, I have to say, I think in general - apart from the odd wording here and there - the article seems very fair - but there are problems.

This theory isn't like a lot of "loony science" out there. It has been - and continues to be by a vocal, if small group - seriously discussed by those in the relevant field. It is also, unlike many scientific theories labeled as pseudoscience, not being used by any group to push any mystical or new age beliefs - that I know of.If it has been in anyway "tainted" it is due to Talbot and his rather peculiar theories on archetypal imageery and cosmology (I thought the answer to many of his queries regarding the similarities in this archetypes had begun to be answered by migration and also the psychotropic end of ethnopharmocology - anthropology (or whatever its called) but what do I know.)

Anyway this theory has been discussed enough in the mainstram to find resorces to support what the article presently says surely? Really2012back (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the pro-mainstream resources are 1. many of the 25 references listed under "Notes", which support details but not the overall picture presented there, and 2. Ned Wright. As for the "mainstream doesn't take it seriously so no research/comments exist about because it is ignored" argument, that strikes me as more of a fact than an argument - the argument is how do we deal with that fact. Does that mean we can't criticize plasma cosmology due to lack of sources? That attitude can also be reversed - ScienceApologist goes further than I would like removing any pro-fringe/pseudoscience material on the grounds that only fringies/pseudoscientists say those things, therefore there is no reliable source. If we can't criticize plasma cosmology, then where do we stop on the slippery slope that leads to demanding a peer-reviewed paper that refutes Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, if we don't want to report Mr. Claus as an astronomical fact? Yes, original research is bad. See WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources for some more thoughts on this conundrum.
Although I've followed this debate for years, I don't remember Talbot. But as I understand it, plasma cosmology as it is promoted today has more in common with Velikovsky than with Alfven and his Nobel Prize. Velikovsky can indeed be described as "mystical or new age beliefs". See http://www.thunderbolts.info and http://www.plasmacosmology.net for instance. There is also non-mystic plasma cosmology; see Eric Lerner, and that is the kind of plasma cosmology described in this article. Art LaPella (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art, You make a number of points but alas contain a false logic that has seeped into wiki over the last 14 months. Let me explain.

You say, rightly, that plasmacosomology has been used by the nonsense propagated by Velikovsky and followers - and you would be correct. however, this does not mean that we should dismiss plasma cosmology on this basis. Much of quantum physics has been "high-jacked" by the new-age movement - see "what the bleep for example" but does this mean that we should thus crisis or reject modern quantum physics for example? Lets take another example the various versions of unified field theory. John haglin worked on one of these and now uses it to support "yogic flying". His present use of the theory maybe ridiculous but this does not mean that we should reject the theory for that reason. It is certain, that Hannes Alfvén never connected his theory with the "strange" theories now been associated with it by some.

to say that the theory has only been looked at twice by the mainstream is equally incorrect - to conform simply look at the article it self - see for example the section :"Further developments"(Interestingly the two source in the article used to support the argument that the theory is ignored by the "mainstream" is a "petition" signed by plasma cosmology supporters!)

The Santa claue analogy equally cannot not be used. Plasmacosomology has been investigate as a serious theory - it is simply that there has not been enough substantive interest at the moment to find funding it for it to any great degree. It is not the place of WIKI editors to decide - without evidence - that a theory - no matter what it might be - is valid or not. Its is an encyclopedia and as such should report the facts from research or experts in the field, it should not be platform for certain interests groups or individuals to support their own thoughts on a subject. If they wanted to dop that - and they had the recognized expertise - then perhaps they should look for a job editing encyclopedia Britannica or encarta ;-)

If a theory is as ridiculous as this article states, but is one it admits has been researched in the mainstream it should not be difficult to find resources to support what it says - oddly they do exist.

To do otherwise is either lazy editing or POV pushing.

By the way, I'm not a fan of this theory - its just the way the article;e is written. When you get articles written like this - without supporting references - it just gives room for the fringe to say, "wiki is nonsense and biased and can't be taken seriously". Its also why academics would fail a student who quoted WIKI in an essay, project, etc - as I'm sure you know. Really2012back (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

By now most of what you write sounds at least plausible compared to my understanding of this subject. Some exceptions:
"the theory has only been looked at twice by the mainstream is equally incorrect...the section 'Further developments'" I missed that one. Does that mean Peratt is the mainstream? Why is it interesting that the source used to support the argument that the theory is ignored comes from plasma cosmology supporters? Are you looking for a statement from the National Academy of Sciences that "We hereby ignore plasma cosmology"? That would be self-contradictory. It can only be sourced by quoting plasma cosmology supporters.
"It is not the place of WIKI editors to decide ...that a theory ... is valid" is of course another argument that can be used for Santa Claus. It is the place of editors to decide to what extent "Plasma cosmology has been investigated as a serious theory".
"it [the article] admits [plasma cosmology] has been researched in the mainstream" Once again again again, I don't know of any such mainstream research other than what I've described before. I'm a stock market guy so maybe you know something I don't, but whatever you want to call the article (to which I contributed little but proofreading) can't make me know of resources that to my knowledge don't exist.
"without supporting references" - other than the unusually long list of 25.
But I probably wouldn't have written the article the same way either. Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art - i haven't got the energy really but back to the 25 refs What i am saying is that a lot of references are used to dispute the theory yet the references used don't actually either mention the theory or comment on it - this is original research.

let me try to give a non science example:

Lets say that resource which, stated that the majority of the Cd's sold by EMI in 2007 were "Pop" recordings (89%) (Pov, Pov, Pov &Pov: 2008). From this, a wiki editor might right a sentence that said "During 2007 EMI produced and marketed mainly POP singles which made up 89% of their total sales" (Pov,et all: 2008) Now, a quick look at this - and the fact that it is referenced would suggest that this is true. But the truth is of course that it is not. It may very well be that during 2007 EMI actually produced - and spend more time - marketing "classical" records. the author is not only assuming but conducting original research. Where as the examples - when references exist - in this article are not as bad they are there never-the-less.

lets look at an entire section in this article: "For example, the standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on dark matter collecting into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.[17] Recent simulations show agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-body cosmological simulations of the Lambda-CDM model.[18] Most astrophysicists accept dark matter as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology.$$$$

There is no research from cosmologist in either looking specifically at the plasma model. this entire section is "original research" something disallowed under wiki guidelines. If the research or commentary cannot not be found in the community it is not the job of WIKI editors to generate it based on their understanding of the subject matter - that goes for both pro and anti theory supporters. What you have in the section I have just cited is basically an essay.

Frankly, the more I investigate WIKI articles the more ridiculous and unreliable they become - often filled with nothing but the personal opinion of certain editors. Really2012back (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, are you proposing to change the article? Or should it be deleted? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Art, what I am saying is that either the points made in the "comparison with other cosmologies" section either needs to be reveferenced correctly or this section deleted entirely - if no such reliable comparisons can be found. There is actually no need for this section to be honest. All it is at the moment is an essay written by the editors comparing plasma with mainstream cosmology. Removing it would not lessen the article. Note for example the wiki article on "the Big bang" theory has no such comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Perhaps a more honest new section called "criticisms" might be better and no-doubt easier to reference :-) Really2012back (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem I have always had a problem with plasma cosmology, namely, what it is and what it isn't. The central feature seems to the the importance of electromagnetic forces at cosmological scales. A non-essential but nearly ubiquitous feature seems to be a universe without a beginning. I don't see any way we can say plasma cosmology "postulated that the universe has always existed" without giving a summary of why the scientific consensus disagrees - even if no one specifically mentions plasma cosmology when reviewing the evidence for the Big Bang. We can't simply say that plasma cosmology postulates that Birkeland currents play a role in the formation of large scale structure without saying that the latest simulations using only gravitation are in good agreement with the observations - even if no one points out that they are then in disagreement with plasma cosmology. I know the situation is not ideal, but I think the present section provides a service for the reader and is adequately sourced. I wouldn't doubt that the section can be improved, but I don't see deleting it to be an option. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand Art but I really can't see how such a section can exist without it being little more then an essay and original research. Replace it with a criticism section - which would be easier to source - would be a far "wiser bet". It is certain that the reader needs to understand what the perceived issues are with the theory, just as they need to understand "issues with the "big bang" theory. This article is not as bad as many of the other alternative cosmology articles in WIKI it is true - and congratulations to the editors for that - but it can certainly be improved, or at least this section. how to do it is perhaps the issue.Really2012back (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How would your proposed "Criticism" section differ from the current "Comparison to mainstream cosmology"? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea, was being polite. Thought some editor could use that format to produce something better then the poorly argued first year undergraduate essay thats in place at the moment. Really2012back (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any idea how to improve the section either. But we only have three choices. Either we find a way to fix it. Or else we live with it as it is. Or else we delete the article. An article in Wikipedia must be notable, meaning at a minimum that it has received significant coverage in (multiple) secondary sources. If we cannot find sources that directly deal with plasma cosmology from the point of view of mainstream cosmology, that would be sufficient reason to delete the article. Deleting just the one section is not an option. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's amazing, thats the second time this week in wiki were I have heard the "either leave the self researched essay, pov critique in place or else we will have to delete the entire article argument." And it is here - as the first time I heard it very weak indeed. The articles content is of course "Notable" being one of the few alternative cosmology's that has any possibility of describing "the truth", it has also been well researched - even if less since the 90's and there are other factors - but I am sure you are aware of those assuming you are a physicist as you claim on your wiki page. To be honest, I would be better if the article was deleted rather then being - as it presently is - the result of a first year undergraduates essay and giving the appearance of authority. can you find much in the way of mainstream resources that deal directly with a comparison of the so called "Big Bang" theory with other alternative cosmologies? No? Then obviousely that too needs deleting - false logic, poor research and threats do no one any justice. But please, put the article up for deletion - i would support it whole heartedly.Really2012back (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream resources seldom compare the Big Bang to alternatives, not because they don't care about the Big Bang, but because the alternatives aren't nearly so notable. I could prove the latter obvious fact one more time with Google Scholar if you really want to debate it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you find the argument weak. I was quoting nearly verbatim from policy. Maybe you would like to share your reading of that. My professional opinion of plasma cosmology is that it has zero possibility of describing the truth and is anything but well-researched. But your assessment and mine aren't important, only the notability of the topic. What is the evidence of that? Some 40-year-old speculation by a Nobel Prize winner, a handfull of peer-reviewed papers, a few websites, and a 15-year-old popular-level book. It's not nothing, but it's what I call "weak". --Art Carlson (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

edit

While I find difficulties with this section anyway - see above the statement: "

Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology[citation needed]. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration."

Is not only unsourced but shockingly POV. That I might agree with it is neither here nor there. Really2012back (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually do POV edits, but "plasma cosmology is unworthy of serious consideration" would be POV. "plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration" is attributing that POV to "the [astronomical] community" who believe it. Yes it's unsourced, but once again www.cosmologystatement.org could be used, as it says the same thing in a different way. I would rather see it start out like "According to the astronomical community,..." but that's already there; it's just a matter of emphasis. (Note: there are two Arts.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree obviousley with the first part Art and yes the second part could be sourced from the New Scientist letter - but the tone would need to be changed. Perhaps a direct qoute form the letter? I think to be honest this would be easy to rectify if you want to work on it with me. Aagin, I have no POV in this matter - although if I'M honest I think the plasma model has more holes then swiss cheese - but i really would like to see the tone of this section to be more nutral. Also, as I have said I dont think it is actually necessary - a straight forward critism section might not only be more honest but easier to support and less POV Really2012back (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, what is not "NPOV" about this section exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Really2012, have you ever edited this article under a previous Wikipedia account? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that statement is POV. And the POV is the mainstream cosmology POV, which treats plasma cosmology with disdain. So it's an accurate statement of the mainstream POV, in as much as the mainstream dignifies this subject with any response at all. Normally they just laugh and point, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Slow down, Guy. If it really were POV, we would be obligated to fix it. Wikipedia is committed to writing articles from NPOV, not mainstream POV. Correct is that the mainstream POV has to be adequately presented as such, which, as the other Art correctly points out, the statement in question does. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is the statement and then the wording in the article. The statement itself (attributed to the mainstream community) is a POV. The wording in the article is not a POV. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article

I just stumbled upon this article, and reading it easily gives the impression that Plasma cosmology is a scientific theory. But if the last sentence is true, "As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration", this is absolutely not the case, and this should be made very clear from the beginning, in the first sentence, that Plasma cosmology is fringe, not accepted at all in the scientific community. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think that nonstandard cosmology does the trick? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncensored version

If people want to see the uncensored version of this article and learn what you are not supposed to know about plasma cosmology, go to this November, 2006 version of the Wiki article [48]. In my opinon, this is what the wiki article should be, without censorship. Elerner (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed those portions of your comments that do not "discuss changes to its associated article" as required by WP:TALK. If you want to discuss those points, your personal talk page‎ is a more appropriate forum. The part of your comment I left above is moving in the right direction, but is still not very helpful. In the year and a half between your favored version and the current version, a lot of editors have done a lot of work to improve the article. If you really want to help on this article, you will have to (1) make more specific and less sweeping suggestions, and (2) explain why a reversion should be made despite the discussion and consensus that accompanied the change originally. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The following Talk contribution by Elerner (talk) was deleted by Art Carlson (talk). As you (Carlson) rightly mentioned, deleting others talk contributions is not a good thing to do. So just don't do it. --John.constantine (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Scienceapologist is so lacking in scientific arguments that censorship is the only thing he can do. So he deleted the above comment, instead of replying to it. Elerner (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just read the talk guidelines and it is against the guidelines to delete others' comments and proposals.Elerner (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am making my contribution to what the wiki article should be, as I still have a right to do, yet people are erasing my comments, in violation of wiki rules. Censorship, not science is what rules here, it seems.Elerner (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You misquote me, or rather, misquote WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. It is explicitly allowed to "[delete] material not relevant to improving the article." I won't revert you (at least not more often than once a day - self-imposed 1RR), but I hope other editors will weigh in on the appropriateness of these comments by Eric Lerner. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about actually removing Eric Lerner's comments, but at least the removal was explained here, and neither Eric Lerner nor John Constantine has really addressed that explanation. It certainly wasn't what is defined at Wikipedia:Vandalism, for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, because the current article is a travesty. I wanted to read about the topic from the perspective of those who are experts in it. If it is wrong then I'll rather read somebodies critique of the specific claims rather than circular criticism. --80.213.48.172 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the article, the perspective of experts is: "these ideas have generally been ignored by the mainstream cosmology community.[5][6]" That statement is pretty well supported by [5] (http://www.cosmologystatement.org). Supporting "somebody's critique of the specific claims" is more difficult, as there is little critique of something that is ignored. The article links to Ned Wright's criticism in "Further reading", but citing him as the Voice of Science has often been challenged, so what we can state with more certainty is that mainstream cosmology generally ignores plasma cosmology. Why is that circular? Doesn't Wikipedia ordinarily assume that recognized scientists are the experts? Art LaPella (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Experts reject astrology, but it does not stop us from writing a decent article about the subject. There are hundreds of peer reviewed articles on which we can draw to produce a verifiable text. We haven't. The current article confuses Plasma Cosmology with Klein-Alfven Cosmology, and includes a section on "mainstream cosmology" which belongs in a article on "mainstream cosmology". The current article contains errors and speculation (as highlighted by missing citations). The article is indeed a travesty. --59.139.29.98 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the wikipedia page on palm reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiromancy), which is clearly the very definition of pseudoscience, is allowed to contain quite a lot of information about this subject, based entirely on conjecture and peoples beliefs. I suggest that if we are following the rules applied here that we delete the main information about palm reading on this page, just leave some information about the initial ideas and people that started this subject, and insert a section titled 'comparison of palm reading to mainstream science'. The very clear difference is that plasma cosmology has hundreds of reputable peer reviewed scientific publications to reference, all published in highly respected scientific journals. How many reputable peer reviewed scientific publications does palm reading have?
After reading this article No-one would even know the original assumptions that plasma cosmology is predicated on, and how these drastically differ to mainstream cosmology approaches. After reading Lerners version you can clearly see this distinction, and can also understand what plasma cosmology actually is, but this current version is very confusing and muddles the (now pretty much fully disproved) Klein-Alfven Cosmology with more recent and up-to-date plasma cosmologies. Reading the uncensored version of this article, this article is indeed an absolute travesty, and I hope the esteemed editors here will consider some of this 'uncensored version' for inclusion.

Suggestions for change of scope of article

I think that it would be far better to change the title of this page to plasma cosmologies. Either that or start a completely new page for some of the other plasma cosmologies since Alfvens specific ambiplasma ideas. It would also be an idea to include on this page what makes a cosmological theory a PC based cosmology. Just like on the Big Bang page it explains what a makes a cosmological theory a Big Bang based cosmology. Lerners above uncensored article explains this well in the overview section [49], but could be expanded upon. Thoughts?

Doing this we could keep all this information about Alfven and Kleins disproved cosmologies on this page, but also have a sections which include some of the the other models proposed since this, such as the work of Lerner, Snell, Peratt, etc, some of the more recent models consistent with a plasma cosmology approach, such as the work of Moret-Bailly on CREIL, Marmet and Gallo's work on the wolf effect (and others), Ari Brynjolfssons plasma redshift work and also some futher evidence that lends credence to plasma cosmology, such as the Surface Brightness Data From HUDF, intergalactic radio absorption, the non random anisotropies in the CBR, Gerrit L Verschuurs alternate model of the CMB, Some of the work looking into intrinsic redshifts in quasars (and some of the explanations given for this, like the plasma based one by Sisir Roy et al), Ryabinkovs work showing periodicities in the absorption line spectra of QSOs, and many others. Also we certainly need to include some of the older history of plasma cosmology, all the way back to Birkelands work and how this influenced the experimental extrapolation of laboratory physics to space, and clearly explain how this is a core aspect of PC models.

Another brief suggestion; the history of plasma cosmology could certainly be expanded. This article just starts with Alfven, but the roots of PC approaches to the cosmos start way back in the late 1890's with Birkelands work, and since then the work of Irving Langmuir, Dirac, Jansky, Grote Reber and Appleton; they should also be mentioned and their contributions acknowldeged. After all, the work of these people is what originally inspired Alfvens work that is mentioned so prominently in this article. The relevant parts of their work that contributed to PC should also be shown. Bostiks work certainy merits a mention aswell[50], especially with all the publicity it got in many mainstream news outlets in the 1950's [51] Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNailor (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives. We've discussed all you're points before. This is the most notable example of plasma cosmology and that's how it will have to stay until more people notice these ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, could you please just address some of the things I suggested instead of dismissing them simply because it was me that wrote them. AdamNailor (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Adam, I've addressed nearly everything you've written in the archives. There are megabytes worth of discussions about how best to write this article and what is notable about it. Part of the problem is that Brikeland never made any cosmological conclusions because he had no conception of the scale of the cosmos. Certainly Alfven credits Birkeland with being one of the first pioneers to think about plasmas in astrophysical concepts, but that is a different matter. Likewise the points about Langmuir, Dirac, Jansky, Reber, etc. all who were not developing any cosmological ideas in their work. This is not an article about astrophysical plasmas, this is an article about a failed paradigm. The Moret-Bailly, Marmet, Brynjolfsson, Verschuurs, Sisir Roy, Ryabinkovs, and Gallo "work" has received no notice by independent sources and so is rightly excluded from this article by various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place to promote new and exciting findings that have not yet received notice or fame. There are basically two notable aspects to plasma cosmology: Hannes Alfven's work in the 1950s to ~1980 and then the brief flurry of interest in the early 1990s when it was briefly (and erroneously) thought that there were problematic measurements of the CMB which discounted the Big Bang model. Since you mention Ian Tresman's wiki, I think you may find that your interests are more closely aligned with the philosophy of his Wiki than the philosophies here. Why not join him and help him develop his reference work? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems this article is more about your POV than being an accurate reflection of PC. Most of your points about the history of PC do however seem quite reasonable, but I seriously contend your premise that "this is an article about a failed paradigm". Who made this decision? You I presume. I could list many, many problems with the Big Bang and say that it is a failed paradigm in return. There are many scientists, and I'm not talking just about Lerner or Peratt, very reputable top scientists, that are beginning to pay attention to this heirarchical type of approach to cosmology (cosmology proper)[52] And I think a lot of the confusion over PC comes in because it is not like any previous cosmology, so may not even deserve the title of a 'cosmology' at all, but rather an intuitive different approach to cosmology. You would not call the Big Bang itself a cosmology, but the theories formed within this framework are, PC is more of a framework than a cosmology.
On reflection, Wikipedia is obviously not the place for any new material. A shame, as there is so much information that could be put within the scope of plasma cosmology, but if the rules we are adhering to are that we only include the most well known and recognised material, I would agree that attention to PC was greatly diminished after the 1990's. But I would also like to add that scientific popularity does not imply scientific veracity, by any means. I'll add material to Ian Tresmans wiki instead. I suggest that you add a link to his website in the further reading section, he has a lot of really good info on there that is supposedly banned from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNailor (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Adam, but unfortunately, I think that WP:EL basically prevents us from linking to Ian's website until it gets some outside notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
To suggest that Plasma Cosmology or the work of any reviewed author has recieved "no notice" is disingenuous. Basic WP policy is consensus. This talk page has often expressed a clear majority opinion- which is consistently opposed by a defensive, volitile minority.Hilarleo (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Note" by Kenzofeis

I reverted these edits by Kenzofeis. To begin with, the contribution is poorly formulated, it is not at all integrated into the structure of the article, and it partially repeats the claims of PC already covered earlier. Worse, the content is highly questionable. It is claimed that there are "many" (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) supporters of PC, without specifying who they are. In fact, PC is practically ignored among cosmologists. It is claimed that PC is based on "solid science, empirical evidence". This is patently the POV of the editor, certainly not a generally accepted fact. It is proposed to include a reference to Thornhill and Thunderbolts. This has often been proposed before, and it has always been decided that they are not sufficiently notable. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew it, thist is totally in line with the bias shown by two "contributors" here and was sort of at test to see how long it would take until the "information nazi task force" as I would term it would react.

You claim it's poorly formulated, but provide no basis for the claim, as expected. It is integrated as a note, footnote, offering a counterweight to the linking to the BB theory and all the down-talk. "Partially repeating" you say, again without reference pointers, and, if it is, it is a summary of sorts. I could remove the word "many", and you act unfair when prposing a list of all that supports this theory. You cannot list every person supporting the BB theory, but you still use the word "consencus". When using the phrase "solid science, empirical evidence" it is well founded, it is based upon just that - lots and lots of plasma research and experiments and so on - and demanding a list of every one of them is again unfair. It's not "POV" - it's fact. I know about the "discussion" about Thornhill, and that certain elements here do not want anything to come forth to support the Plasma/Electric universe consept. This is also unfair, since his views has a right to be aired, just as much as the speculative aspects of BB and whatever else. Do you suggest to remove half of Wikipedia because many people mentioned are not "notable"? How notable are you? This is a farse. And I suspect that you will try to have me blocked or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the science to Art Carlson, but let's start with the first claim, "poorly formulated". In the reverted edit's first paragraph alone, from a proofreader's standpoint "maintains" should be "maintain", "forces is" should be "forces are", the comma after "cosmology" is a comma splice, "some even blames" should be "some even blame", "participant's" should be "participants' ", "knowledge into" should be "knowledge of", "it's" should be "its", and "also" should be "and". I could go on, but that is as good a place to stop as any. Art LaPella (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "personal attacks" - by reading the discussions on the article I find it to be accepted, as long as its wrapped in nicely. I see it like this: downtalking others, disregarding their efforts, having them blocked for arguing against something or making such threats, waving off the competency, knowledge and relevance of certain persons now taking the Plasma model a few steps further (because they become a nuisance to the established?), I don't like it. But I like being honest about things and get things out in the open to have them resolved in a honest and fair way. I felt it like a personal attack when my "addendum" was removed within minutes, instead of any correction to any misspelling, or a simple removal of a "bad link" - instead a simple "cut him off!".
English is only one of the languages I must use, and it is not my native language.
"participant's" is used to be less 'putting everyone in the same basket' - it is pointing to any relevant participant, his/her doing, and not everybody's. Compare to your "proofreader's" ;P But, ok, I remove that word now alltogether. But as I said I am not an englishprofessor, and there are even differences between american and british grammar.. "maintains" is found to be a correct wording, and is more descriptive of an ongoing process. "knowledge into" and "knowledge of" are two separate things, the latter says 'yes I have seen a lightbulb being switched on' - but this is maybe not 100% correct grammar, so I change it. "it's" has been changed. "also" was switched with simply "and" to avoid "and also".
After this, if whole articles are to be removed because of a misspelling they may just as well take down the whole site. I have changed the contribution and will put it back in. To just remove anything that is "disliked" is .... uhh.. how scientific is that? And, who gave two persons, that obviously also are opponents, the right to dictate what people are to study in this subject? I say "two persons" because that is what one can deduct from the whole lengthy discussion page here, and when they position themselves like this and seem to have a strong bias, they must accept critique for it I think.

I'll make one more effort to engage you in good faith, but your ranting does not make it easy.
However, in short, it is argued from the Plasma Universe/Electric Universe community that the force of electricity are being downplayed in conventional cosmology, by a general lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the electricity realm itself by "mainstreamers" - its manifestations like plasma, Birkeland currents, the aspects and effects of electricity in all its consequences, the cause for electromagnetism and the vast scalability of electric phenomenae.
I have never heard anyone claim that mainstream physicists have "a general lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the electricity realm"? Not Alfven, not Lerner, not Peratt. Do Thornhill and Talbott make such a claim? I'd like to know where you are getting this.
It is held that electricity as a force is vastly more powerful than gravitation alone, although it is also said that gravity has a longer reach.
No one ever denied that the electric force between elementary particles is vastly greater than the gravitational force. Both of them are inverse-square forces. It is not clear what statement is being made here, much less to whom it is being attributed.
The proponents of the Plasma Universe model will see manifestations of electric forces interacting with matter where the classic view sees "neutral" matter with gravity as the main force, or tend to lean towards that view.
That was first mentioned in the first sentence of the article.
The proponents also maintain that bringing the electric aspect fully into play greatly simplifies many unecessary complicated problems, and by Ockham's Razor rightfully so. That it even resolves totally many problems, or constructs, risen from observations lacking other (directly proven) explanations, thus offering solutions as justified as any other. The filamentation of the grand structure of the universe, as mentioned above in the article, is taken to support this view or at least not to contradict it, since these large currents are seen as channels or streams (Birkeland currents) permeating the cosmos, connecting everything in a filamented structure and also causing emissions of long and short radio waves including light and gamma radiation from matter affected by these currents, be it stars, planets, comets, nebulæ or quasars. This conflicts with the mainstream "gravitation only" view.
Filamentation is currently mentioned, but only in the Comparison section. Is filamentation part of the Alfven-Klein cosmology? I suppose we could consider adding a sentence to the Further Developments section. The basket full of stars, planets, comets, nebulae, and quasars is not very clear. Remember, this article is about cosmology, so planets, comets, and even stars are of limited relevance. What contradicts the mainstream view? Gravity can cause filamentation, and astrophysical plasmas are known to emit radiation.
Offered by this consept is expanded and alternative views to the implications of the Plasma Universe model as one ventures further and seek to put the consept into a practical use by attempting to apply it to observed phenomena, and compare the predictions and outcomes to mainstream models and dogma.
I am willing to make allowances for non-native speakers, but I don't have time for gobbledygook. Make the effort to write intelligible sentences or find another hobby. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... the first one is not mentioned that way "in the first sentence of the article", I also sum it up in a more understandable way, I also said "in short". Will you dispute the wiki policy of making things understandable to people not so knowing about the various subjects at hand? Will you dispute that?
If the relevant links to or mentioning of the people currently working on this subject was not repeatedly sabotaged it would be very possible to show what is ment by the "general lack of knowledge" sentence, and I see one proof of this situation in your argumentation. The electric force is stronger period, even at larger scales. Electricity have no problem in overcoming gravitational forces, e.g. quasars - even our sun shows this in a powerful way.
Regarding the filamentation as caused by electricity through plasma is differing from the standard view of "gravitation is all" and this must be said. Again you just play dumb to have the reasons to slap me in my face.
"the basket full of" is there and is very relevant because these objects are a part of it all. Also, what *sigh* contradict the mainstream view is that the filamentation observed both here and there is caused by electricity, not just gravity.
And lastly you try slapping me in my face again with insults. But hey, go on, as I understand it - insults and gaming is against the rules here. If you don't understand the text maybe you should stay away from these matters. Seriously.
What happens here is the defense of the wiki rule about making things understandable to novices, which takes different approaches than "wall of complicated text with lots of complicated stuff".
Lastly, this link to the blog article by some guy does NOT carry any text stating that "even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology". Throwing in some "yea but he's an expert!" does not change this. What shines through however is that the blog article is favoured because he downtalks and in this holy crusade I suppose that is generally taken as a good thing. This is not youtube, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your style of argumentation oblique and often drifting into personal attacks and original research. May I suggest this: Pick the one place you think the article can be most improved. Say what you think is wrong with the current version. Propose a specific and not too extensive change to the wording of the article that would address the problem you see. Keep in mind that the content must be WP:NPOV and based on WP:RS. If you take this approach, I have some hope that we can come to an agreement. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I just ask: is this your article, do you have the ownership of it? And do you get to say what is to be told to people that come looking for neutral information?
The whole article, in my and obviously I am not alone in that view judging by this discussion page, reeks of downtalk, bias, and also unfairness since links to current information on the subject is not allowed by two persons, while several others want this information available here.
It seems to me like this article has been hijacked, also judging by the earlier version, and then the present negative angle. Regarding "personal attacks", I don't see how it is better if it happens sideways, by proxy, instead of in a honest way. I might add that I will not go into details, at least for now, about what is perceived as wrong with the current version, as my contribution has not received any detailed critique except the one about grammar - which could be edited where faulty instead of removing the whole text. Removing the whole text and claiming I write "gobbledigook" with no justification is an insult.
Then, the Plasma Universe consept is not just Alfvén any more than the BB theory is those two inventing it - and they were, as I understand it, religious, does this make the whole BB theory bogus? According to earlier arguments it should, so the question yells for an answer.
Agreement would be nice, but one is allowed only ONE minor edit? Wow.. that's.. hmm..
This is not the way to "come to an agreement". The agreement would come if the article is allowed to be given fair contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the conributions of Kenzofeis as a combination of original research, unverified claims, and violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can rewrite, and often have rewritten foreign-sounding English, and Wikipedia appreciates foreign editors. But you were the one who asked for examples of that problem and of many other problems, as if no such examples existed. Art LaPella (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. They are collaborative. As such it is the rule, not the exception, that major edits are questioned and discussed by other editors.
  • We don't need to discuss whether personal attacks might be OK if they are "honest". They simply violate policy. Period.
  • "my contribution has not received any detailed critique" - What do you call this?
  • "Offered by this consept is expanded and alternative views to the implications of the Plasma Universe model as one ventures further and seek to put the consept into a practical use by attempting to apply it to observed phenomena, and compare the predictions and outcomes to mainstream models and dogma." - How can I possibly "justify" my claim that this is gobbledygook? I am a native speaker of English with a Ph.D. in physics and I cannot makes heads nor tails of it. Perhaps you would like to explain its hidden meaning? Or at least tell me where the subject and verb are?
--Art Carlson (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Add in differences in predictions of plasma cosmology with BBT

I think that we should add in the predictions that plasma cosmology has made, and how they differ from BBT. I am aware that many of the predictions have not turned out true, but I dont care. We should still add them in so people can better understand the difference in approach to cosmology that distinguishes it from the Big Bang theory. I recently outlined some of the core predictions that PC proponents have made which distinguish it from standard cosmolgoy in this post at Jref forum: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4435954&postcount=1237

Thoughts? I can add in peer reviewed references for each prediction, each from reputable astronomy journals. I will make the changes soon then we can discuss them here. [This is adamnailor btw, I just forgot my password so cant log in] 86.163.136.94 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and try it. Unfortunately, most of the attempts to do this up until now have been problematic because the "predictions", though from "reputable astronomy journals" did not receive the independent third-party notice necessary for inclusion according to WP:FRINGE. Post some sample text here and we'll discuss it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been noted before, & I have to agree- your tone is unilaterally and consistently hostile. Hilarleo (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Also, note that this article is governed by the guideline on fringe theories, and must present an unbiased external perspective on the topic. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

by considering it fringe in the first place makes it biased, and given that plasma cosmology is discussed by mainstream or at least respected plasma scientific journals, it isn't a fringe theory but an alternative theory from scientists in the plasma field--GundamMerc (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"citation needed" tag

In this edit, Nosaj27 added a "citation needed" tag to this statement:

Most astrophysicists accept dark matter as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes.

Nosaj, could you tell us what you are looking for? Do you doubt the truth of the statement, do you think it cannot be verified, or do you just think this is a place in the article that the user might expect a reference and should be given one? Are you concerned with the part about dark matter, structure formation, or electromagnetic processes? The trouble is that statements like this are hard to source. We know that most astrophysicists accept dark matter because they often assume it to be there and seldom talk about alternatives. How would you reference that? --Art Carlson (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology/Archive_9&oldid=789551859"