Talk:Plasma cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Plasma cosmology is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
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.

Electric Universe[edit]

The page Electric Universe (physics) redirects here, although that term does not actually appear in the body of this article. Could someone who is familiar with this topic either add a reference to that in the article? Or, if it's an erroneous redirect, fix it or nominate the redirect for deletion? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It would be rejected. This is also not a primary source. Electric Universe (physics) is a constructed fiction based on misinformation and an agenda. (Thank you for bring this to my attention, though.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. You should feel free to nominate the redirect for deletion; deletion reasons 5 ("The redirect makes no sense") and 10 ("...the target article contains virtually no information on the subject") might apply. I would normally do something like that myself but I don't know anything about the topic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The International Science Foundation, a group which claims to neither support nor oppose the Electric Universe hypothesis, has provided $2,200,000 USD to fund an unprecedented repeatable laboratory experiment to test the Electric Universe claims regarding the nature of the sun. The intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission, and thereby demonstrate whether the Electric Universe solar model (in particular) has any solid grounding in real, repeatable observations.
That said, enough real activity is happening with the Electric Universe hypothesis, that it deserves its own wiki page at this point - even if it remains classified as pseudo-science rather than proto-science. I believe the severe distinctions between the Electric Universe hypothesis, and the more basic Plasma Cosmology, warrant separate pages for the two hypotheses, perhaps with some appropriate referential links. Giffyguy (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. The promotion of this is still pseudoscience, and then claims that this somehow back by NASA via a YouTube propaganda clip is plainly ludicrous. Since the recent papers regarding the likely strong magnetic fields exist in the sun's core via asteroseismology, the proponents of electric universe and plasma cosmology start acting nuts (again). Worst, if you go to the link unprecedented repeatable laboratory experiment you get a 404 error!! This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it? Also this alleged organisation is not "The International Science Foundation for Science", which it attempt to confuse the reader. The site under [1] is also attempting to raise $1.2 million, NOT "provided $2,200,000 USD to fund" as claimed here. Worst the site claims "ISF offered" $1 million dollars in 2013.[2] They did not actually present this money! Does not Dr. Michael Clarage also run the site you claim here?
NASA has not plan to explore anything to do with the Electric Universe hypothesis, and to subtly claim otherwise via this International Science Foundation is tantamount to fraud.
Just type SAFIRE is a Google search, and you get nothing absolutely about this!!
Using Wikipedia for promotion is against policy, and as such, the need for some page of the Electric Universe will not likely occur. (I'd speak against such a move!) Please, stop wasting Wikipedia editor's time!! Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if there is any miss-communication here, including if I miss-read the funding information. I don't know anything about that organization, I'm just referencing what they claimed in their description on their website, as well as the apparent result of this research funding in the form of the vacuum chamber experiment design shown in the video. That URL works for me, so I'm not sure what's going on with your browser. I'm not interested in promoting anything, pseudo-science or otherwise. This is intended to be an informative article, based on factual information (by proper academic standards, e.g. peer-reviewed publications), nothing more. I don't believe I insinuated anything about NASA backing the SAFIRE Project, but I'm happy to consider better wording if the current phrasing is confusing. The reference to the comparison between the results of the SAFIRE Project and NASA's Solar Probe Plus are also taken from the same presentation. All if this information can be cleared up as needed, if there is still miss-understanding. At the end of the day, the topic needs an article explaining the nature (and problems) of this hypothesis, especially since it is growing into an organization of notable size (annual conventions, independent research, etc.) It's troublesome to Google "electric universe", and only find pseudoscience in the top results, and Wikipedia is a fabulous place to address this issue for the global community. My understanding is that this is what Wikipedia is for, correct me if I am mistaken. Giffyguy (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Utter garbage. There is no "mis-understanding." You said "I don't know anything about that organization, I'm just referencing what they claimed in their description on their website," Why would some novice access a fraudulent website, with no facts nor support, then claim "...Wikipedia is a fabulous place to address this issue for the global community." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Promotion is not allowed. Push this pseudoscience garbage, and I'm not the only one will respond accordingly. SAFIRE is a fraud design to confuse the novice who knows no better. Push it, and dozens will push back! Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is using Wikipedia for non-neutral promotion, it appears to be you. For your information, the first legitimate publication I'm going to use in my draft, is an article critical of the Electric Universe, published in Scientific American last month: The Electric Universe Acid Test - Discerning science from pseudoscience. I'll be on the lookout for more publications of this nature, quality, and legitimacy - but this should be a good start for now. Bear in mind, this discussion was only supposed to be about whether or not an article in some fashion should exist - with real publications available, I think it should. Keeping things neutral and complying with Wikipedia's standards and policies should not be a problem. Giffyguy (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"...publications of this nature, quality, and legitimacy..." - since this is supposed to be a science topic, Wikipedia needs peer reviewed scientific publications in reputable journals. EU proponents haven't published any science articles in I don't even know how long, and they don't make robust quantitative predictions on their self-published webpages. Until they do, there's no point in a separate Wikipedia article about their claims. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a list of a couple dozen publications I'm digging through at the moment, most of which should be IEEE or the like (I'm confirming whether each meets the standard you described). Some of these publications are also currently cited for the existing Plasma Cosmology article (since Plasma Cosmology is a small, partial subset of Electric Universe). As I mentioned before, complying with Wikipedia's standards and policies should not be a problem.
I think I'll take this opportunity to point out that most of the opposition here seems somewhat subjective, and based on incorrect assumptions (such as the assumption that there are no peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals, while the Plasma Cosmology article already cites several to begin with). I'm doing the legwork myself here, and I'm fine with that - the purpose of this dialog is to make sure everyone can be on the same page. I don't intend to write an article citing self-published website data - I only pointed that page out, to demonstrate that these people are doing something noteworthy in one way or another, even if it is only notable in its perceived ridiculousness. If the issue is really only the perceived lack of reputable publications, I'll certainly refrain from drafting an article if I can't find any. Let me know if you have any other concerns, otherwise I'll proceed with drafting an initial skeleton of this article based on what, if any, reputable peer-reviewed publications I can find, and including reputable criticism and opposition in at least equal measure. Giffyguy (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, and all this is supposed to be justification of a new page on the "Electric universe"? The IEEE does do legitimate work, but that is under the topic of Plasma (physics) NOT astronomy nor cosmology. I.e. IEEE members are neither astrophysicists or cosmologists. Rejection of relevant papers in not only peer-review but also papers relevant to those who study under it.
As for saying "If anyone is using Wikipedia for non-neutral promotion, it appears to be you." Well done. Accuse the accuser. What am I promoting then? Wikipedia has policies that do not promote organisations or POV. Electric universe and Plasma cosmology are considered pseudoscience or Fringe science.[3] As stated "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method."[4] After the problems with this page alone, with fanatical EU/PC nutters hell-bent to ignore actual science and replace it with nonsense, you'll excuse us for not taking your word and be totally skeptical. Failing to be upfront and factual might help too, especially in light of the deceptions and falsehoods so far presented here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources about Electric Universe as a distinct subject exist, then Electric Universe (physics) should be a proper article and not redirect here. Even if that article simply states that Electric Universe is bunk, which it appears is the mainstream consensus. But we need the sources first, and any discussion about the suitability of Electric Universe (physics) and links to or from Plasma cosmology are pointless until Giffyguy or someone else produces those sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater[edit]

We need to be more careful when discussing molecular clouds and star formation. Ten or twenty years ago this stuff was largely modeled in terms of gravity and gas pressure. Today, electrical, magnetic, and Magnetohydrodynamics phenomena are seen as a major force in dense core collapse and star formation. For example, there are dense cores thousands of times as massive as could be explained by gravity and gas pressure alone. In a prestellar nebula, magnetic forces hinder collapse, but plasma jets shed huge amounts of angular momentum that would otherwise cause the prestellar nebula to break up. Let's not confuse Alfvén with contemporary astrophysics. For more info, go to Google Scholar and search on either "molecular cloud" or "star formation" plus "MHD" and you'll see what I mean. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)