Talk:Plasma cosmology

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Objection

This article is incredibly biased and spends too much space making assertions about other models than it does educating readers about Plasma Cosmology. There are a variety of errors and plenty of irrelevant information. This entry appears to have been written by an individual with very little information on the topic and requires further input from a professional more closely associated with the topic. Orrerysky 20:48, November 23, 2013‎ (UTC)

See the warnings and instructions on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Orrerysky:, the problem is that such professionals would not be reliable sources if they exist, as this is a fringe topic. It may be that some such professionals do not consider parts of this article as being "plasma cosmology", but all of it is reported by reliable sources as being "plasma cosmology". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommend you read this Orrerysky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJBarney24/WikiProject_Plasma_Cosmology Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This article makes the claim that Plasma Cosmology is mostly rejected but provides no polling data to support this claim. Who was hired to perform this poll? Where is the reference to the poll? This statement has no support. I have conducted an extensive search and have found no data indicating that any scientific poll was ever conducted to gauge public acceptance of "Plasma Cosmology", how did the poll define "Plasma Cosmology"? This page says it has not been properly defined so how do you reject something you can't define? This comment is highly dubious and has only encouraged the contentious edit warring that has taken place. It is irrelevant and unnecessary towards education of the topic. Orrerysky (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mostly rejected, and reasonably so. I.e. Plasma cosmology features in few peer-review astronomical/ cosmology articles or textbooks, while the 'Big Bang' is widely covered. Plasma cosmology has been mostly rejected because it utterly fails in its predictions against the observational evidence. No poll needs to be taken, because astronomical theory is based on scientific precepts not by polls or opinion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I support Orrerysky. It would be best to change from "mostly rejected" to "mostly unknown". Wavyinfinity

Plasma Cosmology Edit Warring

I have moved this from one of my subpages. It belongs here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, please refrain from reverting edits as you did with Plasma Cosmology, this might be misinterpreted as edit warring on your part. My edits were self-edits resulting from making multiple corrections to previously sloppy and poorly created entries. Correcting this topic will take some time. The current edit is sufficient while I work on improving the entry for this advanced science topic. As you pointed out, Edit Warring can result in Administrative action, refrain from reverting back to earlier entries. Feel free to consult with me regarding further edits or changes. Orrerysky 18:07, November 24, 2013‎ (UTC)

I have no interest in this subject. My main concern here is that you discuss your changes. You do not own this article and must therefore collaborate with other editors. Making huge deletions and large edits that are potentially controversial is not acceptable, unless you have already created a consensus for such changes. Per our BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you have been "Reverted" (repeatedly by several editors), and you must now "Discuss" the matter, not continue to try to force your preferred version into the article. That's edit warring. You were warned and instructed in the edit summaries and on your own talk page, yet you persisted. You should be blocked for edit warring.

You have also made strong personal attacks, and you should also be blocked for doing that. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time that you have reverted an edit without explaining your reasoning. If you reverse an edit again without proper collaboration I will need to report you for Edit Warring. This is also the second time you have insulted the integrity of a member's edit without sufficient cause. The edit you keep reverting back to appears to have been made under very dubious circumstances. If you revert the edit back again you will be guilty of Edit Warring behavior and I will need to have you reported and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to report me, but you'll experience the WP:Boomerang effect. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, also note, that the edits you are referring to were done by Bots. I doubt I can have any conversation with a Bot who was reverting the edit due to not providing an Edit Summary. Since you have no interest in this topic, I trust that you will refrain from your disruptive behavior. Let's get one thing straight, you reverted the change specifically because whether you realized it or not a bot reverted it for not including an Edit Summary. I provided an Edit Summary on a subsequent edit, neutralizing the bot's reason. You will cease and desist immediately and I will not hear from you on this matter again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Large deletions of content are treated as vandalism. We rarely rewrite articles here, and not by one person alone. We edit collaboratively, usually making small edits. You are not informed enough to start serious editing, especially on controversial topics, so I suggest you read and respond to the concerns expressed on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you are working on a completely new version of the article. That's not how we work. Don't expect to be able to create another article and then just replace this one with that one. We work collaboratively here, so do most of your editing here. You can use the sandbox for smaller matters, just to try them out. Otherwise you're welcome to play around in your sandbox. You may come up with some forms of content which can later be incorporated here, but only after other editors approve it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing problems

This article has ongoing problems because the topic is rather poorly defined by proponents and detractors alike. Alfven's ideas were somewhat all over the map and the best summative explanation of the promise of plasma cosmology was probably Peratt's articles from the 80s and 90s that describe his overarching vision replete with overthrowing cosmology, galactic dynamics, compact object theory, and perhaps even general relativity on the basis of unaccounted for plasma phenomena. Of course, this promise has not borne fruit and the subject is about as moribund as a subject can be. We initially tried to focus on Alfven and Klein's ideas, but others pointed out that their cosmology is somewhat separate from Peratt's proposals and Lerner's book which is probably what the subject actually is.

Quite apart from this are the internet enthusiasts and further out-on-a-limb proposers of such ideas as electric stars, electric machining of planetary surfaces, and electric comets. These ideas are so far removed from academic discourse as to be impossible to document in Wikipedia without engaging in heavy original research.

I'm not sure what the solution really is. As is, our article is okay on the subject, but I don't think Wikipedia is equipped in its policies to handle a truly good exploration of the topic which would clearly demand a certain level of originality that we just cannot accommodate.

So that's where we are. New suggestions about things to remove or add would be appreciated. But aside from this, I'm not sure what more can be done with this rather fraught page.

jps (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Working on new article

Hello! I have been working on a new article in My Sandbox and would love any input you can provide on it. From your comments I see that you are definitely interested in something different. The current article suffers from many deficiencies and has outdated information and inspires a lot of hostility. It is also lacks the aesthetic quality of a respectable encyclopedia. My Sandbox effort should provide a great replacement and I hope to have your support.

Examples of outdated features:

1. 3x10^18 Amp currents have been observed. (See My Sandbox),
2. Plasma Cosmology isn't mostly rejected, is there some scientific poll to support that statement? I don't recall getting a poll from Zogby on the matter. When was the scientific poll conducted? A more accurate statement would be mostly unknown
3. There is little details as the article spends more time addressing criticisms from confused people than actually presenting Plasma Cosmology.
4. Take a look at the Lambda-CDM article, not a single mention of criticisms from these so-called Plasma Cosmologists are listed there. Why the double standard? An Encyclopedia should make a presentation about the topic, not a presentation about the debate about the topic and disagreements and debates about "what it all means?"

I hope my revisions will have your support. Orrerysky (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some problems with this article. The solution is to fix it, not to create a new article which is not on the watchlists of all the editors who might be watching this article. They should have the opportunity to influence any changes as they are made, and that can only be done here. Just fix the errors, using proper sources. If there are any problems, others will revert or improve your edits and discussion here will move things forward. That's called collaborative editing, which is how we work. Solo editing rarely works well, unless it's minor tweaks of an uncontroversial nature. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is something important to read: Wikipedia:Be_bold#..._but_please_be_careful.21 -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

——

Orrerysky. All your "examples" you request for support (and much of your sandbox) are irrelevant to the topic of plasma cosmology.

Plasma cosmology is mostly rejected by astronomers or cosmologists because it simply does not match the observations. I.e. Evidence shows that the Universe is finite, not infinite. There is little evidence of strong, coherent or sizeable magnetic fields in the creation of the universe (or there after), and this is not at all related to the cosmic background radiation. Birkeland currents do not exist on the cosmological scales, and there is zero evidence to support it.

The largest astrophysical current was from a radio galaxy 3C 303, being a polar jet. How is this related at all related to the subject of plasma cosmology?

Your sandbox says; "...Plasma Cosmology models like ΛCDM (Lambda-CDM) theorize." This is a completely misleading statement, as the rejection of plasma cosmology is based on the actual strength of the Lambda-CDM predictions/observations. The 'standard theory' is based on its predictive strength., which 'plasma cosmology' openly fails. Stating Lambda-CMD is a form of plasma cosmology theory is plainly silly.

Criticism of plasma cosmology ended the arguments for support for it 20 years ago. Big Bang cosmology has had published papers until the current day. The last true astrophysical paper of plasma cosmology was in the 1990s. Among astronomers and cosmologists, the overwhelming majority have rejected plasma cosmology, and only a few IEEE members (outside the astronomical/cosmological discipline) seem to consider it as relevant.

You say "Plasma Cosmology isn't mostly rejected, is there some scientific poll to support that statement? I don't recall getting a poll from Zogby on the matter. When was the scientific poll conducted? A more accurate statement would be mostly unknown. "

Wrong. It is mostly rejected by astronomers and cosmologists who do not support plasma cosmology. If it were supported there would be more published astronomical/ cosmological papers on it, but there have been none since the 1990s.

Your sandbox covers much on plasma related topics, but little of it has to do with the actual topic of 'plasma cosmology. Moreover, "Plasma cosmology" is not the broader ideas of the so-called "Electric Universe." You, like most of the proponents of these ideas who have tried and edited this wiki article, confuse (probably deliberately) this topic by explaining things well beyond it preview. A really good example is you saying "Plasma Cosmology is the scientific study of astrophysical plasma for local and large distant structures in the Universe." Cosmological theory is the study of the origin and fate of the universe. "Electric universe" is actually a subject of cosmogony - dealing with the origin of particular astronomical objects. I.e. The sun.

Your sandbox also mention Winton H. Bostick who mostly theorised of the magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. This has been rejected completely by astronomy and cosmology as wrong, as the fields have been shown localised and non-coherant (polarisation measures) , and not being sufficiently strong enough to influence galaxy evolution. I.e. The magnetic field lines do not follow the spiral arms as Bostick does predict. Also Bostick's two papers on galaxies appeared in 1982 and 1988, though the central tenants of this appear by him in 1957 and 1958. His modified Hubble expansion paper was again published in "Laser and Particle Beams" and notably not in an recognised astrophysical or cosmological journal.

In essence, your 'revisions' or 'changes' do not have my support because they are manifestly wrong and are likely motivated by bias and not any established fact. Lack of objectivity will certainly not win you any friends or supporters. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Arianewiki1, not only are the majority of your comments utterly wrong, a quick check of this topic sees that you are one of the very individuals guilty of the edit warring taking place. I wonder if it my entry that is biased, or your's. In fact, the answer to that question is quite obvious. I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article. Orrerysky (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Threats against other contributors is a big no no. Suggest you carefully read WP:CIV and WP:PERSONAL. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New Page Requested

This Page must be replaced, it is outdated, inaccurate, highly contentious, poorly phrased, poorly researched, and shows too much infighting. As an encyclopedia this page should be about the topic, not about the debate about the topic. I am creating a replacement page that I hope might please all parties involved. Please talk with me about improvement to my effort at My Sandbox. Orrerysky (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not an ordinary encyclopedia. Our articles are quite different. When we say "about plasma cosmology," we include far more than any other encyclopedia would likely include. We aren't just another encyclopedia. We present the topic, including anything written about the subject in reliable sources. That will include debates about the topic, controversies, opposing POV, etc.. In that sense, Wikipedia articles can cover much more territory than other encyclopedias. We have a much larger scope. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is perfectly OK and surmises the current lack of astrophysical/ cosmological support for 'plasma cosmology.' The so-called infighting reflects the conflict with an biassed agenda-driven group with the available facts. Much of what already be suggested for the replacement page an Orrerysky's sandbox is either incorrect, lack sufficient evidence, and much of it is totally unrelated to 'plasma cosmology.' Frankly, "your effort" so far greatly lacks both insight and understanding.

From the long history of the evolution of this article, it is clear that much effort has been made to explain why plasma cosmology has been so openly rejected. It looks piecemeal because people are trying to compromise against a crazy fringe of individuals hell-bent in ramming through their unfound and unsupported views - that have been proved time and again mostly wrong or in being caught twisting the facts.

Worst Orrerysky has already violated the three times edit warring policy, and by all rights should be immediately blocked. Brangifer has already explained this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Arianewiki1, from a quick look at the edit history, edit warring appears to be your fortè. You should refrain yourself until the Dispute Resolution ticket I have created has been resolved. Orrerysky (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)