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.

"Consensus"

I must object to the reference to "consensus". Wikipedia claims to be fact based, and consensus applies only to opinions. We are not talking about a bunch of nuts here, we are talking about disagreements between scientists who are all fully qualified in their respective specialties. To call one side of this disagreement a "consensus" implies that the other side is not qualified and I object to that unwarranted implication. 69.21.45.236 (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we're obliged by our policies to point out that few scientists support the concept. We cannot give the two sides equal weight. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That the concept is supported by few or many is (presumably) a statement of fact. Designating one side of a disagreement as "consensus" and the other side as "non-standard" is not. The history of science is full of examples of the consensus being dead wrong. Jewels Vern (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. If you have reliable sources showing that the consensus was wrong in this particular case, we can add them to the article. You only need to present them here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

An 'undo' edit war has commenced, between propagandists for The Standard Theory, and researchers for Plasma Cosmology, where defenders of BBT attempt to refute Plasma Cosmology and censor any new information which cancels out previous criticisms. Censorship of information both relevant and moreover essential to a topic is unacceptable.

Comments such as : "(IP editor: please take this to talk. You'll have to come up with reliable 3rd party sources if you think Marmet's work deserves mentioning here.)" by Parejkoj

Wikipedia does not require a multitude of sources for citations, 1 scientific paper is enough. The opinion of Parejkoj does not decide what "is" and "is not" a reliable source? By this protocol - any source which disagrees with the Standard Model is an "unreliable source.

(rv last edits by IP: using 1 recent paper to claim that the theory has become mainstream, paper is from journal "Physics Essays" and doesn't mention the word "plasma") by Enric Naval (undo)

Firstly, No entries what-so-ever have been made to suggest that Plasma Cosmology has become mainstream. New, extremely important and relevant information has been added to a topic for readers of the topic to gain comprehensive, updated facts on the subject, which defenders of the Standard Model persist in preventing.

Secondly, The paper refers to photon propagation velocity being reduced in "Gas" Plasma is Gas! - Mass deletion and on Wikipedia is vandalism and censorship, both of which are unacceptable.217.208.57.69 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was made by removing "their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.". And then changing "but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed".

You also say "Big Bang supporters claim Plasma Cosmology is at odds with standard explanations",

About changing "but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed", you didn't change the source that supported this statement, and you didn't add any new source for the new text.

Then you take a paper in Physics Essays, a low-impact journal that seems centered on theoretical papers. And you claim that "has revealed the physical interaction which finally solved the problem of non-Doppler redshift". This is an extraordinary claim. If it's really correct, then you will be able to find better sources.

Then you add that Plasma Cosmology doesn't need to explain cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) (why??).

They you say that George Gamow predicted 50 kelvin degree, thus making the conclusion that Big Bang is incorrect. But this conclusion is unsourced. And Gamow predicted 5, not 50? And plasma cosmology never made a better prediction? And this says nothing about Plasma Cosmology being right or wrong?

The only source you have added is: Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, [1],A New Non-Doppler Redshift. But this source doesn't mention Plasma Cosmology, and doesn't cite any plasma cosmologist (Alfven, Klein, Peratt, Lerner.). You elaborate your own original research to apply this paper to Plasma Cosmology!?

Sorry, this is not censorship. This is rejection of material that has lots of problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is blatent censorship. The material is in fact sourced, cited, and based on proven physics.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, per policy, 'proven physics' consists of physics as recognised by the consensus of mainstream sources on the subject. We are under no obligation whatsoever to provide free publicity for unrecognised fringe theories. And appropriate editorial control isn't censorship. If you want to plug this nonsense, do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "As far as Wikipedia is concerned, per policy, 'proven physics' consists of physics as recognised by the consensus of mainstream sources on the subject."

Such a statement is as absurd as it is naive. Mainstream Peer Reveiw are on a mission to suppress, discredit and destroy Plasma Cosmology as an obvious threat; And this very same mainstream peer review is going to "recognise" new emperical evidence in direct conflict with the Standard Theory(?)

All Non Standard Theories would remain "Fringe" theories if censored by biased editors.(AndyTheGrump, et al)

Submitting the following as proof of bias Censorship : "19:32, 6 June 2014‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,514 bytes) (-1,321)‎ . . (Undid revision 611843626 by 217.208.57.69 (talk) revert fringe nonsense)" 217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed Talk section

What happened to the previous Talk section, that e.g. contained a complaint about strongly biased and previosuly banned Joshua Shroeder having edited this topic (the main page)? Also please be adviced that the Archive lacks a section from Dec 2013 up to now (May 2014). A significant period. Siggy G (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 3, where there are 2 threads specifically about User:Joshuaschroeder. Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 11 includes material as recent as February 2014, so I changed the header at the top of the page. It's slightly misleading, as Current Talk page content belongs here on this page, but a header of "May 2012–Roughly 1 month ago" is a tad cumbersome. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)