Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

See the RfC page for this article.

Magnetic field 0.3 microgauss

The statement that the magnetic field is 0.3 microgauss in the local supercluster is misleading. The hard upperlimit on the intergalactic magnetic field is 10 nanogauss and there is considerable evidence that it is far lower than this. The diffuse IGM has orders of magnitude lower magnetic field density than galaxies.


This statement was cited to a verifiable source. The above dispute with it is both inaccurate and not cited. So I restored the original.

I also restored the sentence in the CMB section that SA complained about as needing citation. I supplied the citation.

Finally I removed the tag "fringe physics". Plasma cosmology is based exclusively on well-confirmed and universally accepted physics like electromangetic thoery. It has nothing to do with fringe physics.Elerner 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I researched this question and found the following:
"Radio observations of galaxy clusters indicate that the intra-cluster medium (ICM) between the galaxies is permeated by intense MFs. Nearby clusters are seen to have a ‘‘radio halo’’ with a distribution similar to that of the cluster gas, observed in x-rays. These halos are produced by synchrotron emission from CR electrons spiraling in the cluster’s MF, while the x-rays are electron bremsstrahlung. Measurements of the Faraday rotation of linearly polarized radio emission traversing the cluster’s medium, in combination with x-ray data, support the existence of cluster MFs of a few μG."
and
"The MF between clusters and isolated galaxies in the inter-galactic medium (IGM) is not known. Speculations on its value range from nearly a μG to a pG. Low-level radio emission was detected from the IGM around Coma and from the IGM in large-scale filaments of galaxies. The estimated field strengths are of the order of several hundred nG."
Dar and Rújula, "Magnetic field in galaxies, galaxy clusters, and intergalactic space", PHYSICAL REVIEW D72, 123002 (2005).
128.214.205.44 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim Thompson's criticisms

  • We have no idea whether plasma cosmology is ignored in the professional community. Certainly all the members of the IEEE who received the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, read about plasma cosmology. And who knows who visits all the plasma cosmology web sites out there. I suspect that most of the professional community are specialists, who tend to ignore most publications that are not in their field.
  • How do we assess the notability of an individual such as Tim Thompson, or anyone for that matter? How do we distinguish between his opnion, and conclusions backed up by research? --Iantresman 09:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


If we were to take your criticisms to heart, Ian, the entire article would be gutted. Tim Thompson is an astrophysicist who I happen to know you know very well. Hiding behind WikiLawyering is poor form. --ScienceApologist 09:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Working at a main-line astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology institute, I certainly have the impression that plasma cosmology is ignored.
  • The text on my desk (Modern Cosmolgy, published in 2002) has no entry in the index for "plasma" and contains this unambiguous statement by Silvio Bonometto:
As an example, it is now clear that the universe is evolutionary. At the beginning of modern cosmology, models claiming a steady state (SS) of the universe had been put forward. They have been completely falsified.
Would that be a better reference than Tim Thompson? How about a list of textbooks on cosmology that don't mention plasma cosmology?
--Art Carlson 09:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
But, according to its adherents, plasma cosmology is not steady state but rather based on something more like the static universe. --ScienceApologist 14:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "the professional community", and to give the suggestion that "it" speaks with one voice and unanimously dismisses plasma cosmology is misleading.
It is a fact of sociology that there are people who make their living studying cosmology, that these people tend to have relationships with one another, and that there are issues on which a substantial majority share a substantially similar view. --Art Carlson 11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So there is a professional community after all? By the way, are we talking about the community of cosmologists or that of plasma physicists? --Art Carlson 11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That certain astronomers and certain text books ignore plasma cosmology, I do not contest. --Iantresman 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I contend that all (or maybe only 95%) standard text books on cosmology ignore plasma cosmology (or dismiss it very briefly). Do you disagree with that? --Art Carlson 11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My beef is with "the professional community". It doesn't necessarily imply professional cosmologists. But I don't know how to reliably quantify it, especially when there are professionals who seem well aware of it, see www.cosmologystatement.org --Iantresman 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't quantify how many of these professionals ignore plasma cosmology. Most of the signators do. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who signed the statement did not ignore plasma cosmology which is mentioned in the statement. They nearly all may still feel that the Big Bang is better than plasma cosmology, but that's not the same as ignoring plasma cosmology, nor even dismissing it out of hand. --Iantresman 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it help to specify "the community of professional cosmologists"? Granted it is difficult to "reliably quantify" the proportion of professional cosmologists who ignore plasma cosmology. If we can at least get a rough grasp of the degree of acceptance, isn't this something we should report to the reader? Isn't looking at the index of popular text books one way to do this? As for the cosmology statement, (1) it supports Thompson's statement since it is nothing but a lament that plasma cosmology is (unjustly) ignored, (2) it is not at all clear how many of the signatories are professional cosmologists. --Art Carlson 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps it's better to note the approximate proportion of text books that mention plasma cosmology... Google books seems to mention just a dozen or so, [2]. People investigating plasma cosmologists tend not to be cosmologists, but plasma physicists and engineers. --Iantresman 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of the signatories are advocates of other nonstandard cosmologies. Some of the signatories aren't even cosmologists, but are bitter about other things. --ScienceApologist 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, couldn't find anything in the statement about bitterness. And Alfvén wasn't even a cosmologists either, just an engineer who made more correct predictions on cosmic plasmas than any astronomer, and subsequently shunned for having the audacity to do so. --Iantresman 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually, text books like Peebles do mention it. But I will accept "mostly ignored" as accurate, implying most people ignore it. What I won't accept is slipping in personal opinions, like Thompson's, who is in an entirely different field. If he qualifies to put his opinions in, then of course any grad student like Jonathan can put his two cents in without citation and we are back to square one. I still fail to understand why Jonathan keeps hammering away at this article month after month.Elerner 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim Thompson, who has a PhD in astrophysics certainly is more qualified as an "expert" than Eric Lerner whose highest academic acheivement is leaving graduate school without a master's degree. If we can (and do) quote Eric Lerner at length certain Tim Thompson can be quoted. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a Tim Thomson with a web site, but he has a Master's degree in physics and is interested in astronomy. Academic achievemnent could mean no more that agreeing to learn what the professors want one to learn. Most professors fear for their job and will, according to Kuhn, adapt to the prevailing view. The prevailing view does not constitute evidence of validity. Especially in this day and age. Could be that a reluctance to learn the prevailing view is evidence of wisdom.

Tommy Mandel 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The difference is that (a) Eric is peer reviewed (b) Tim provides no explanation for his views; If he made exactly the same statement on Wikipedia, it would be removed as unsubstantiated opnion.
  • Not all of the commentary in this article represents work that has been published in peer reviewed sources by Eric. Being a notable debunker makes his opinion noteworthy. Eric being a developer of this pathological science makes his opinion noteworthy. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I can find someone at least as qualified as Tim, to disgree with Tim's views on their Web site, can we quote them too? --Iantresman 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We already do include such things -- first and foremost being the link to the cosmologystatement. More sources are always welcome. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The letter at cosmologystatement.org was published in New Scientist. Tim presents nothing more than a personal opinion with nothing to back it up. Wikipedia:Reliable sources recommends against using personal websites as sources. But you claim to understand the scientific method, and if you think it's a good enough source, then on your reputation be it. Funny how you insist my citions are peer reviewed, and sometimes a dozen of them aren't enough. --Iantresman 22:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
New Scientist is definitely not peer reviewed. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
New Scientist is a reputable secondard source. Tim Thompson's opinion is unsourced. But if you want to argue for the reliability of one person's unsourced comments on their personal Web site, then I wish you the best of luck. --Iantresman 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Anyone reading this discussion will conclude, correctly, that Joshua(alias Science Apologist) has some strange motivation on this page, since he has been attacking the subject for months, if not years and has the time to make changes at any hour of the day seven days a week. Unless this is an assignment of his advisor, I wonder why.

An expert, Joshua, has to demonstrate his or her expertise in some way. Thompson has not written one paper in cosmology, given one presentation at a conference on the subject, nor contributed one scientific idea or observation to the field. I base this on his own website.

On the other hand, since you bring it up, I have not only published many peer-reviewed papers on the subject, I have also been invited to give presentations on my work at leading universities and observatories, most recently at the European Southern Observatory. But I have limited my citations on this page to peer-reviewed journals, or, in the case of New Scientist, prominent news sources. I suggest that you do the same.Elerner 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeek?! Eric I think there is a mix up. I have nothing to do with SA's (aka Joshua Schroeder) contributions, in fact I have mostly given up trying to debate here, since it is impossible to debate self-righteous fanboys who are convinced they are right. Jon 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Whoops sorry I mean Joshua--mistake corrected.Elerner 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel's criticism's

Joshua is an admitted Big Bang advocate, who has destroyed all logical evidence of plasma's influence. He signs on as a materialist on his home page, and thereby creates his own limitations as to view and tools. It is my belief that the only reason ScienceApologist is here is to sidetrack the real advances in the science of cosmology. One might call him a proactive secret spy for the Big Bang folks. Secret in that he pretends to want to improve the article on plasma cosmology, proactive in the sense in that he has managed to remove all the neat stuff about plasma in not only this article by others as well. He resorts to insults, his pathology is projective, and he threaten's those who oppose him. SA is about destruction of the plasma cosmology effort, he is not here to help us.


Tommy Mandel 04:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious misstatement of fact is the last word "us". It would be fair to say ScienceApologist is not here to help plasma cosmology advocates. Art LaPella 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Déjà vu. –Joke 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Science apologist has two helpers, Art LaPella who parrots everything SA says and does. And then there is Joke. These three can be found on all cosmology articles making the case for the Big Bang, and ridiculing alternative cosmologies. Together they maintain tight control over everything outside the big bang article. They are clever but not wise. They are intelligent but not smart. In spite of this, they are adept at destroying anything which would suggest the Big Bang is not valid.

Tommy Mandel 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks.Joke 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


It is not personal per se, take the Big Bang Theory, at first it did not work out. It was quickly found out that an explosion of matter as proposed by the original Big Bang concept could not account for the Universe as we know it today. Clearly this is a falsification. So the theorists invented a new kind of explosion, an explosion of space, that happened so quick it created the Universe in less time then it takes us to say "poof". Magically, it carried all matter along with it, and then somehow magically stopped, cooling down to become us. That indeed is very clever, but not at all wise considering that Inflation is not testable and thus is not scientific.

And the equations for the Big Bang theory, very precise and exacting, but they are all based on gravity. Not at all smart to ignore 99.9% of the Universe. Especially when the only compelling reason to do so is that 99.9% of the cosmologists do not understand electricity. Example? The Black Hole, observed by a tremendous OUTFLOWING of matter. How does it do this gavitationally? How does something with tremendous gravity EXPEL matter? They imagine this happening by means of an acreation disk which is where outward radiation counters inward flow, the excess is thrown outward. No comment though, when a supposed Black Hole resides in nearly empty space and still is expelling matter...

It doesn't take much of an academic education to realize that the Big Bang theory also ignores Plasma effects and thus is forced to invent fantastic unknown forces and unseen matter to account for anomalous events. It is not wrong to hypothesize these strange things, what is wrong is to treat them as proven facts, and it is especially wrong to teach students that such hypothesis have merit and it is doubly wrong when those students take it upon themselves to assume the hypothesis is a fact and present them as facts to the world as they do here at Wikipedia. Science is not a popularity contest, and to treat it as such, as is being done in this discussion and article, is not being scientific, regardkess of how rigrous the imaginings are...

Tommy Mandel 23:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To say we aren't smart, for instance, can be considered a personal attack. To argue on and on that the Big Bang theory is wrong surely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Science isn't a popularity contest but our verifiability policy might be summarized as a weighted global popularity contest. Art LaPella 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


No, it is not up to wikipedia to pass judgement on the facts, just to state them as they are. There would be no problem if the big bang conceded that it is an unverified theory, but somehow it has gotten twisted around that it is proven fact, and other theories are wrong. What do you call it when you withhold evidence that the big bang is wrong? Is that smart?


Tommy Mandel 06:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

THE PROBLEM is not so much that the big bang is wrong, (has inflation been tested/verified?) but that it does not include, by design, electromagnetic effects of plasma, which, incidently, accounts for 99% of the universe. The mathematical structure of the big bang theory has as it's basis General Relativity. GR is concerned with gravity only. The big bang attempts to explain the universe by means of gravity alone, and thus is forced to come up with fantastic explanations. All this because plasma is ignored or discredited or dismissed. This ignorance does not constitute evidence that the big bang is right. It does constitute evidence that the big bang theorists, albeit clever, are not very smart.

Tommy Mandel 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, inflation has been tested. It has been tested by the WMAP satellite and other surveys of large scale structure, which have measured a spectral index in exactly the range predicted by inflation . The big bang theory does not attempt to explain the universe by gravity alone. For example, the cooling of (electromagnetic) radiation in the early universe is one of the vital features of the big bang. Without considering electromagnetic effects, there would be no cosmic microwave background to beautifully confirm the predictions of the theory. Without considering electromagnetic effects, there would be no stars or disc galaxies, or, presumably, life. Instead of just making things up, why not try to understand the big bang theory? –Joke 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that inflation is a theory, and that there are over 21 versions and that one of them came up with the predictions you describe. This in itself does not "prove" inflation. Gravity is the main consideration in the formation of the universe, it is this assumption that leads to the conclusion that gravity forms the stars and galaxies. For example, the black hole is an attempt to describe a tremendous OUTFLOW of matter from a star in terms of gravity. The original authors all acknowledge they are talking about a theory. I'm glad to see you finally acknowledge that the beginning of matter was in the form of a plasma. And the predictions of the CMB were not at all beautiful, but finally they adjusted the equations to describe a black body radiation, which is, may I remind you, if they are correct, the remments of a plasma state. And exactly who is making things up may I ask? Inflation was made up because the big bang did't work. Dark energy was made up because gravity isn't enough. Dark energy was made up to explain an expansion which had not been detected. The black hole was made up to explain how gravity can outflow matter. Plasma theory does not have to make anything up.

Tommy Mandel 05:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is not up to Wikipedia to pass judgement on the facts, just to state them as they are", including the fact that there is a scientific consensus for the Big Bang. To argue on and on that the Big Bang theory is wrong or incomplete surely violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Art LaPella 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging your true colors. Why are you all here? Why have you all assumed final authority over editing here? This is about plasma cosmology and I still can't understand why big bang proponents have such a great desire to edit this article unless it is to make sure that the facts do not get out. Is it because the entire ediface is on such shaky ground that you have to resort to diversionary tactics? I do admit that your actions, all three of you, is reflective of the scientific concensus, But that is not saying much. Tommy Mandel 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't edited the main article in a way that would change its Point Of View, so perhaps you meant to criticize the scientists. I'm not sure if they're overdoing it, but I am sure they should be here - just as unbelievers edit war at Jesus, Bosniaks edit war at Republika Srpska and anti-Communists edit war at Cuba. Would you prefer those articles show only the pro side? Art LaPella 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would expect those articles to be an accurate account of their position - how else would I come to know it? The problem here is not so much that Joshua and Joke and you are big bang advocates here to maintain NPOV, the problem is that you all CONTROL everything that goes in the article as if you are the experts. You have the first and the final say on what goes in here. And what you allow to go in here amounts to plasma cosmology had been largly discredited and is ignored by most cosmologists. When in reality plasma is a fact of life and most cosmologists are not familair with it. For example, this article not so long ago failed to properly define plasma describing it as composed of free electrons.
I would expect those articles to be an accurate account of both positions - how else would I come to know them? And we can't intelligently discuss ScienceApologist or Joke without first recognizing the obvious - I don't control everything that goes in the article and I'm not the expert - I correct its spelling and such, and criticize your bizarre talk page behaviour. Art LaPella 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Art, you wrote:

"Of course plasma cosmology is widely discredited in the sense that it is a small minority opinion among scientists, although all scientists obviously agree plasma exists."

A minority opinion is not a basis for discredibility, recall that at one time in astronomy it was the almost unaminous opinion among scientists that was proved discredited. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Let me give you an example of the poor writing in this article. Consider this sentence taken directly from the article:

Redshifts
Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by the Hubble Law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates an expanding universe.

A key fact was left out in the above paragraph. It may be true that redshift indicates distance, but the sentence fails to mention that the redshift is assumed to a doppler indicator, that the farther away the source, the faster it is receding. This foundational assumption is not included above. Plasma cosmology simply does not make that assumption and therefore need not be concerned with a hypothetical expansion of the Universe...Nor with all the varied black stuff required to make expansion work out.

But it is not only Plasma cosmology that does not make that assumption, Hubble himself to his dying day maintained that the redshift did not mean expansion. I have tried to include this "fact" in the article but was reverted.


from The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada in a speech by Sandage celebrating Hubble's Centennial birthday: "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature IF the redshift correction was made assuming NO RECESSION [i.e., no expansion]. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists..."

Indeed, the work of Alton Arp and William Tifft indicates that redshift is not doppler related. Arp has maintained for decades that differing redshifts can be found in the same galaxy and Tifft shows how the redshift has periodicity, something that would bwe blurred out if it were accelerating.

A verification of Tift's findings is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008026

I have tried to add Tifft's findings as well, but they were reverted on the basis that periodicity was not reported in plasma cosmology literature. So we can't talk about gravity because that is not a plasma phenonmenon?

So what we have are two published ideas which if taken seriously would remove the need for expansion yet they are constantly reverted out of this article. Considering that the reversions have been made by big bang proponents, I submit that this omission is not NPOV.

Tommy Mandel 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better - I didn't find anything that struck me as clearly wrong or irrelevant, although nothing struck me as clearly right either. For instance, if "Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that [redshifts] indicates an expanding universe", I think that's the same as what you meant by "the redshift is assumed to a doppler indicator" and disputing that assumption. And why is Hubble still more relevant than other historical figures like Aristotle? Art LaPella 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hubble is very relevant to cosmology today because it has been said far too many times (elsewhere) that (allow me to paraphrase) "Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding" which is not at all true in any sense. He did not maintain that redshift meant expansion, to start with, and placing velocity (c) into his original equation does not prove or even observe doppler effects. It is being taken as true without proof and that is what an assumption is. Regarding the paragraph construction, I like to think that good writing does not assume the reader has this or that knowledge a priori. A good writer will take te reader step by step through the entire process. The original statement in the article does not mention the doppler effect, and leads one to believe that redshift distance leads to expansion. It does not, it is interpreting redshift as doppler effect that is being taken as an indicator of expansion.

Tommy Mandel 06:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your Hubble quote (perhaps linked or shortened) certainly sounds relevant - if you put your Hubble quote next to an offending quote like the one you paraphrased. Did you? As for the paragraph construction, if I were Jimbo, Wikipedia would take the trouble to explain a lot more things like a textbook, but I don't think this paragraph is the place to start such a campaign. The (alleged) link between redshifts and expansion is better known than anything about plasma cosmology. Do you object to the paragraph that comes after that one, for instance? It refers to Tolman's power law (which I've never even heard of) and links to an article about Tolman but not about his law. Art LaPella 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"The (alleged) link between redshifts and expansion is better known than anything about plasma cosmology." So why is it left out of the article? Tommy Mandel 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Redshifts
Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by the Hubble Law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. It is assumed that redshift also is a doppler effect. Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this assumption indicates an expanding universe.
That wouldn't be an awful change (after reversing "also is" to "is also" and capitalizing "Doppler"), but my point was, it doesn't belong for the same reason we don't describe the Doppler effect as the "neeee-OW" sound one hears when standing by the highway - it's much more obvious than the surrounding text. Anybody who doesn't already know introductory astronomy can't possibly wade through the next paragraph for instance, which mentions Tolman's power law without explanation or even a relevant link. Art LaPella 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The Doppler effect is probably the most important bit of information without which the entire big bang paradigm would collaspe into an informational black hole never to be heard from again. Me thinks that is why you don't want it there, and not because it should be obvious to anyone reading the article. You are wrong to say it doesn't belong there. The entire article is replete with these "obvious omissions" thanks to the three of you.

Tommy Mandel 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross my heart, I'm not kidding. I really think the Doppler effect is more obvious than Tolman's power law, and that's really more important to me than who wins plasma cosmology vs. the Big Bang. Doppler effect (in quotes) gets 1,160,000 Google hits. Tolman's power law (in quotes) doesn't get any. Art LaPella 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? That Doppler Redshift shouldn't be in the article because everyone should know that already? My point is that be leaving it out, a mistake has been made. Mathematically RS=DRS=E, Redshift means Doppler redshift means Expansion. The paragraph in the article is saying Redshift means expansion or RS=0=E. What should be obvious is an explanation of how redshift means expansion. Redshift is not disputed, that redshift is a Doppler effect is not an assumption of plasma cosmology.

Tommy Mandel 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who can follow this article knows RS=DRS=E (according to Big Bang theory, although I think SA might prefer to say space itself expands), so RS=E is a better use of space. Art LaPella 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

???

Tommy Mandel 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else got it several re-explanations ago. How does this game do something for your image? Art LaPella 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying "Of course everyone knows that it is the Doppler interpretation of redshift6 that indicates expansion" and therefore we don't have to mention it is the section which is taking exception to the assumption?

Well, folks, the above is an example of the kind of intelligence the big bang group is showing us. Remove all evidence for an alternate explanation, leave only that information everyone agrees on, jump to the conclusion without leaving a trail, and any reader would have to agree with them.


Tommy Mandel 18:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Universe now redirects here

The redirect was made due to a lack of divergent content. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideas and theories

If "not all the ideas rise to the status of a theory" why are you content to promote them ALL as mere ideas. I've provided a peer reviwed citation to an article that refers to Plasma cosmology as a model. Your continued diminishing of the status of people and theories is not what I would expect from a layperson, let alone a scientist --Iantresman 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some parts of plasma cosmology are indeed models. Some are not. Some are suppositions, some are hypotheses, some are legitimately theories to the extent that they haven't been falsified. To be the most inclusive of all aspects, we call them ideas. There may be a better term, but model/theory is not it. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate term that could describe the whole is "paradigm"

Tommy Mandel 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've just discovered that the Big Bang is a "Scientific theory", incredibly not one idea, model or hypothesis included. --Iantresman 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to remind you folks that plasma is not a theory, it is a fact of life. That most of the Universe is plasma is not a theory, it is a fact of life. That plasma plays a role in the evolution of the Universe is not a theory, it is a fact of life. What kind of role plasma plays is described by theory. A theory could be a model or could be composed of models. The big bang theory is based on an assumption that the Universe is expanding. Expansion is not a fact, it hasn't even been directly measured. Expansion itself is based on an assumption, that being that the Hubble redshift measures velocity. But the Hubble redshift, which Hubble himself didn't agree with, leads to fantastic requirements such as quasars and the Black hole, rather than natural results. Plasma science leads to more and more knowledge, while the big bang model leads to impossible stuff that defies our understanding.

Tommy Mandel 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've restored "plasma cosmology" to a theory, as suggested by the verifiable, citable, peer-reviewed paper where it is called the "plasma cosmology theory" three times
  • Unfortunatately I can find no references to plasma cosmology being a set of ideas. Verifiability trumps ScienceApologist. --Iantresman 08:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, Ian, the only trump is the reader's best interests. Verifiability is just a useful policy to guide us to that end. The Big Bang is a very coherent idea. It is based on known physics, plus a handful of free parameters to be fitted to observations, and a central idea: If we take the apparent expansion of the universe seriously, what would that imply about the past? Incredibly enough, extrapolating a present expansion back to the era of decoupling explains the microwave background and its anisotropies, and extrapolating it back to the first second explains the abundances of the light elements. I don't recognize anything like this coherence in plasma cosmology. Is Alfven's ambiplasma part of this theory, or has it been displaced? Is the role of Birkeland currents in formation of LSS part of this theory, or only, as it is described in the article, a "proposed mechanism"? The evolution of the universe is described as one of the "basic assumptions of plasma cosmology", but that does not distinguish it from the Big Bang, and indeed seems practically empty of content. For these reasons and more I think plasma cosmology can be more accurately and usefully characterized as a "set of ideas" rather than a (single) "theory, regardless of how many times E. Sanders uses the term. --Art Carlson 09:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that the big bang is based on known physics? Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, quasars are not at all "known physics". They are conjectures still waiting for verification. Plasma theory does not need these because, as indicated by observed quantization of the redshift (which your group will not allow to be published in Wikipedia because it would essentially falsify the big bang), redshift does not measure expansion. Without expansion there is no need for inflation, and all the rest of the big bang ideas.
Tommy Mandel 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought that would pull your chain. But seriously, try to think about just your minimal Big Bang theory. Black holes and quasars are nowhere in sight. Inflation is a wonderful explanation of several observations, but you can easily throw it out at the low cost of only a few more initial conditions. It's not much different with dark energy. Up till the latest measurements of Type Ia supernovae, the Big Bang theory was doing just fine. So if you have an alternate explanation for the Ia SN, think the statistics are not sufficient, or just want to ignore it, be my guest. Dark matter is a bit more difficult, not because of the Big Bang, but because there are other observations that strongly suggest it is real. If we see galaxies, intergalactic plasma, and passing starlight all attracted toward one center, the "old physics" way to explain it is to say that something heavy is there, even if you don't know exactly what it is. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope you at least can understand "how I can say that". --Art Carlson 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, let's take the minimal big bang theory "idea". It is a smart thing to take a new idea and see where it leads to. Some would call this thinking it through. We begin with now, and "assume" that by placing "c" into Hubble's equation, we are measuring a velocity. We then see the farther the faster. If we take this theory, and run it backwards, we can see where it came from. Reversing the expansion we have assumed, we end up at a point of absolute nothingness.

What kind of science is that?

Then they became clever. They tell us that this absolute nothingness exploded into our Universe.

What kind of science is based on something from nothing? That's magic, not science.

Hold on, they soon found out that this explosion couldn't do the job. Technically speaking, the original big bang theory has been proven incorrect. Their explanation for this is "Oh no, you do't understand, it was not an explosion of stuff, space inbetween stuff exploded in a nanosecond no less." Well, it somehow carried along all the matter of the Universe without having to account for momentum. Look at what they did, they are saying that the Universe as we know it, just happened. How that happened is not explained. What they are forced to say is that the beginning of the physical Universe in terms of known physics, had to be a plasma that was everywhere. It couldn't be a point, it had to be eveywhere.

Plasma everywhere. From this plasma, the Univese evolved. Do we find plasma everywhere? Yes we do, we found the ZPE and non-locality. Non-locality wouldn't take as long as a nonosecond to do its thing, it happens simultaneously as if a single entity. Now, how do we get from this single entity to something? Like an electron? Well, Maxwell's equations as found in the text do not include his 21 quaternions which was his way of dealing with what they then called Eather and now is known by several many different names the simplest is the ZPE. We have found at the level pf plasma nothingness, absolute zero, something. An energy at the zero point. The ZPE.

The big bang has a flaw in it's inflationary process. Because "space" is expanding, and matter is not matter, matter can arrive everywhere fast. But I invoke the equilalence principle and claim that as far as the matter is concerned it can't tell the difference from space expanding or just getting farther away. In other words when matter slips into the Universe it will still have this momentum of expansion. If so, then matter could not be able to collect together into clumps.

But let's say that plasma arrived. How did matter come about? Well, how does matter come about today? One instance is the effect of gamma rays on ions in to plasma clouds surrounding a galaxy center. So it is possible to create plasma.

It is a foundational assumption of the big bang theory that matter has collected together and formed stars which form galaxies. Soooo, why don't we see it? Why are there globular clusters? Why wouldn't they just clump together? Where can we see this clupmping togehter? We see a galaxy rotating and it looks like the stars are falling in toward the center.

It is a foundational hypothesis of (my) plasma theory (fyi) that the stars are moving outwards, that it is the center of the galaxy that stars are formed and matter as well. The center of the galaxy is like a giant plasma generator which operates by a transition between the ZPE and matter/energy. (One of the Inflation theories has it that singularities are prodeuced by the millions, which looks just like it looks) In fact we have the exclamation from an astronomer, even the president of a society, and he says that it looks like stars are moving outward to him. Oort calculated and outflow to be one solar mass per year. A flow of that rate would have depleted the galaxy center by now leading Asimov to speculate that there must be some cyclic process going on.

So instead of a galactic drain, a galaxy is more like a binary spinning fireworks, spewing smoke in a spirialing outward flow - exactly what it looks like all over the place. So instead of a black hole sucking matter in, we observe a white hole pushing matter out. We do observe matter spewing outward from the center of a galaxy, that's why the black hole was invented,with its unseen accretion disk, sucking in so much matter that some of it is radiated back out. So now when we see matter being radiated out, they say it is because a black hole is at the core.

So it really boils down to one question that each theory, the big bang and the alternative, each has to answer. How was matter created? The big bang simply says it does not know, the first split second when nothingness became an infinite energy is left unexplained. The alternative creates energy from the ZPE, and this energy is converted into matter. This is not as unplasible as it may seem at first glance, it is well known among plasma experimenters that a small amount of "extra" energy can indeed be created, Multiply this small amount by a galaxy and guess what we see?

The big bang expansion is not based on observation, it was derived from an ad hoc change to Hubble's equation, it is only an assumption and because of that assumption all kinds of strange things are going on. The big bang theory is not what scientists call a beautiful theory, it is ugly.


Tommy Mandel 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though this is a talk page, this is not the place to post OR rants. Please don't do so. Nevertheless, as I can't resist feeding trolls, I will note that vacuum energy, which you insist on calling ZPE, is not a plasma. Also, inflation theory does not necessarily say that the universe had to come out of nothingness - although I can't give you a reference, I know Sean Carroll gave a talk last year about inflation occurring spontaneously in a patch of empty space. --Philosophus T 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I guess I'm the one who started feeding the troll. He's more rabid than I thought. --Art Carlson 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So, trapped in a corner, you choose to call names. At least I can think for myself. The ZPE, et.al., has been studied for a decade, obviously not plasma, it is (also obvious)possibly a (the) source for plasma. As I noted above Maxwell thought so. Big bsng says this space/energy is empty, plasma science, and Eastern philosophies as well, say this space/energy is full. It is not surprising and even expected that big bangers will eventually find a way to claim this as their own by giving it their own made up name. Already they hint at it with their Dark energy, another made up mechanism to account for observations resulting from assumptions.

Why are you big bangers here? What are you doing?

Tommy Mandel 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to keep the article in line with NPOV and WP:NOR, and make sure that the article is factually accurate. We are not trapped in a corner. Feeding trolls is a technical term. --Philosophus T 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Philodophus. I have no quarrel with you, I don't even know what you do here, my quarrel is with Joshua, Joke and Art, who are admitted big bang supporters. Nothing wrong with that. But I cannot but wonder what they are doing here? Not only are they active editors, they control all of the article. Joshua repeatedly insults ELerner who is a plasma cosmologist, Joke is his back up while Art LaPella seconds everything they say. So maybe you would like to keep the article in line, but those three have crippled it. When I happened across this article out of curiosity, I was taken aback by their definition of plasma as freely flowing electrons! They failed to mention the importance of scaling and they said in the article that plasma cosmology has been widely discredited. What they really should have said in order to be factual is that plasma cosmology is widely unknown. Plasma, as you know, is not a theory or idea or model, it is a proven and accepted fact. As estimates of plasma range upwards to 99.9% of the Universe, it is not something that is not credible. Seems to me that in the strictest sense of the words Joshua, Joke and Art are the trolls, projecting their pathology onto me. Scienceapologist says the plasma cosmology is a mix of ideas, but actually plasma is not an idea, it is a fact and it is ubigitious, what may look like varied ideas are specializations of plasma applications. Even Art admitted that Plasma formed the first physical state the big bang idea deals with. I find it strange that when the plasma cools down to form matter, gravity takes over. And to such a degree that all events are only explained in terms of gravity leading to problems explaining outflowing jets from galactic cores, the rotation of galaxies and those quasars emitting jets moving faster than light. All of this is a result of the assumption that redshift is a doppler effect which Hubble himself never agreed to. If I were to place Hubbles quotes about that they would be immediately reverted. If I were to mention the work showing that redshift is quantized and thus cannot be accelerating it would be immediately reverted. Tommy Mandel 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest misstatements above are: Although Tommy obviously isn't my favorite editor, I haven't admitted to supporting the Big Bang, nor have I argued for or against the Big Bang at all. And once again, I certainly don't control the article! When ScienceApologist debates ELerner I occasionally criticize either, but seldom if ever on scientific grounds. Noticing the misstatement about freely flowing electrons was Tommy's finest hour, but all of us had overlooked it including plasma cosmology supporters. Of course plasma cosmology is widely discredited in the sense that it is a small minority opinion among scientists, although all scientists obviously agree plasma exists. As for Tommy's science, what would he expect if he convinced me - should the main article then say that Art LaPella believes plasma cosmology? Who would want to read that? It's true that Tommy's edits are generally reverted. Art LaPella 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Art, sorry for the delay in replying, have only just come back from a few days away. Sure the reader's best interst is paramount, but I don't think this determines whether we call plasma cosmology a set of theories, models, hypotheses or ideas.
  • I based the description of Plasma Cosmology as a "theory" partly on what I read and where, and also a comparison with the Big Bang. I think it is fair to say that the latter is also a combination of theories, models, hypotheses and ideas; but it seems that the Big Bang is described using the most favourable description: "A scientific theory" (even though it contains models, hypotheses and ideas), whereas ScienceApologist describes plasma cosmology using the worse description, merely a "set of ideas" (even though it contains theories, models and hypotheses).
  • I don't think it is appropriate to discuss the merits of each cosmology, but I note that both the Big Bang and Plasma Cosmology are BOTH described in peer reviewed journals, are BOTH based on an understanding of existing physics, are BOTH testable, are BOTH falsifiable. There is no doubt that there is MORE material on the Big Bang, and more detailed work on the the Big Bang. But that doesn't relagate Plasma Cosmology from "theories" to "ideas", and it certainly isn't decided by an anonymous editor with a strong bias against plasma cosmology.
  • I'm happy to described Plasma Cosmology as a set of "theories, models, hypotheses and ideas", or even "theories and ideas", but not just "ideas". And as for the Big Bang, it has been described as both a theory ,[3], a model,[4] hypothesis,[5] and even idea,[6], which just goes to show, that it is not exclusively any one of them... but I bet ScienceApologist won't describe it as anything other than a "scientific theory" --Iantresman 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, much of plasma cosmology is derived from "fact" and the big bang itself only starts to deal with "facts" after plasma emerged.

Tommy Mandel 14:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All of us presumably reject Tommy's repeated confusion of plasma cosmology with any cosmology that recognizes the existence of plasma, but did I really take a position on whether plasma cosmology is a theory or an idea? Isn't that issue an example of Flying Jazz's SA and Ian show? Art LaPella 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be confusing, I was replying to Art Carlson's post (09:49, 20 July 2006) above. --Iantresman 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is in charge of determining what plasma cosmology covers? Art, have you read Wittgenstein (Meaning is contextual) (Korzybski (map is not territory) Whorph (notation determines theory) and Kuhn (paradigms evolve through revolution) The confusion is in how we use the words and technically speaking the meaning of words depends on how we are using them. If I am working with plasma, and I am applying my work to the cosmological scale, isn't that then "plasma cosmology"? The argument here seems to be that if one is not a professional plasma cosmologist who has ordained that work as plasma cosmology then the work is not plasma cosmology. I am not a plasma cosmologist so I don't have a vested interest in being this or that. Subsequently I look at plasma cosmology as a paradigm, the word Kuhn uses to describe the community of knowledge. Theory, idea, concept, model are perspectives and it is futile to argue that cosmology is any one of them. Tommy Mandel 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't read those guys, but if you have, then you presumably don't need me to explain how technical terms are defined by usage. Art LaPella 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific POV pushing

  • 71.57.90.3, you may not know how Wikpedia works, but you need to be able to verify your comments. The suggestion that plasma cosmology "is mostly ignored in the professional community" is bunkum, as was shown in the replacements statement which demonstrated that a significant proportion of the plasma physics community (who are professionals), regularly publish peer reviewed material on plasma cosmology.
  • I noticed that you removed the suggestion that plasma cosmology is a theory. Again, this is sourced from a peer reviewed journal, which take precedence over whatever you may think. --Iantresman 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the description of Plasma cosmology as a theory, along with a verifiable citation. Your opinion of the subject is worth squat. --Iantresman 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Plasma physics is not the relevant community. Plasma cosmology may or may not be a theory. This is a debatable sentiment as a scientific theory has to pass rigorous criteria. It is a framework, certainly but may not rise to the level of a theory. It is a violation of NPOV to posit otherwise. --ScienceApologist 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
SciemceApologist is a confessed big bang advocate. It is suspicious to say the least why he is over here claiming that PC is not even a theory. All he is doing is arguing nonsense in order to deny and distract. Tommy Mandel 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As Tommy has repeatedly been told, Wikipedia allows articles to be edited by those who oppose the ideas of those articles. Art LaPella 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't as simple as that art, first "conflict of interest" and second only to help improve the article not to destroy it as you and your big bang friends have done here.
Sounds simple to me, and after the umpteenth explanation it should be simple to you. Wikipedia allows articles to be edited by opponents, even though every opponent (and every advocate) can be said to have a "conflict of interest", and even though they might "destroy" the article (or debunk nonsense). Art LaPella 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and I base the description on a peer-reviewed article, not your unsubstantiated opinion. --Iantresman 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to write "According to XYZ paper, Plasma cosmology is a theory" that would be a verifiable fact. What you wrote is not a verifiable fact. Instead you took the opinion off-handedly mentioned in a paper and decided it should be stated as fact. Just because you put a reference tag in does not mean that your wording is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Is plasma cosmology is a theory, or "group of nonstandard and fringe science proposals"? Wikipedis is based on verifiability. Plasma cosmology is VERIFIABLY called a theory [7] [8], a model [9]
How do we VERIFY that it is a "group of nonstandard and fringe science proposals"... shall we tell readers to ask ScienceApologist? --Iantresman 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any controversy that plasma cosmology is a proposal? If no then this is a neutral description. Is there any controversy that plasma cosmology is fringe and nonstandard? If no then this is a neutral description. We have established that plasma cosmology is a proposal. No controversy. By the admission of its own advocates it is nonstandard and fringe (see the Open Letter). There seems to be no controversy there. Is there any controversy that plasma cosmology is a legitimate scientific model or scientific theory? Absolutely, there are critiques of it shown to exist. Therefore your insistence that your wording is NPOV is incorrect. I am open to suggestions for other wordings, but your wording is wholly unacceptable as it states opinions as facts. --ScienceApologist 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Your current wording is fine. But it is not about controversy. I can find many people who believe that various descriptions of the Big Bang article are controversial. I also accepted that it is verifiably called a theory; personally, I don't think it meets the criteria for a theory, but my opinion is worth zilch.
  • Just because a theory is critiqued, does not invalidate it as a theory; theories can be wrong. --Iantresman 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The question isn't whether PC is wrong, it is whether PC is not even wrong and hence not a theory. zowie 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I submit that the big bang is not a scientific theory. To begin with it starts with inflation, but inflation is not testable and therefore cannot qualify as a theory. Tommy Mandel

Ian, you are mixing up my comments. Theories certainly can be "wrong", but they all have certain features as described on the scientific theory page. It is debatable whether plasma cosmology has all these features. Therefore to simply state that "plasma cosmology is a theory" is promoting the POV assertion that plasma cosmology is a theory. To state "XYZ paper describes plasma cosmology as a theory" is a verifiable way to get the information you are referencing to the reader, if it indeed is that important. What's more, "noncontroversial" is not one of the criteria for a scientific theory. You missed the point that controversy is what embodies the ethos of NPOV. A noncontroversial statement is automatically NPOV. If you prefer, substitute "Neutral" for "no controversy". I use the terms interchangably. Critiques don't invalidate a theory, but if said critiques propose that certain parts of an idea do not rise to the standards of a scientific theory then we have to rely on the neutrality arrangements. The Big Bang is verifiably a scientific theory because there aren't any verifiable critiques which attack its status as such. Even Eric Lerner claims to rise to the occasion rather than dismissing the elephant in the living room. He tries to fight the theory on the grounds that it is falsified (that is, that the theory itself is wrong) rather than objecting to its status as a theory. So does Halton Arp. However, there are critics verifiably referenced on Eric Lerner's page (or talkpage) that reject his ideas as even being worthy of scientific appraisal. That is to say, they don't think they rise to the status of scientific theory or models. Of course, there are those who don't take this approach (Ned Wright being a notable one who doesn't), but the mere fact that scientists dispute the status of plasma cosmology makes claims to its status of a theory or a model highly controversial and plain statements of fact that plasma cosmology is a theory would therefore definitely be a violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, but isn't it enough that there are actual scientists engaged in the debate? A theory may be widely viewed as being wrong, and be rejected by the majority; it may even be ridiculed; that doesn't mean its not a theory. I remember that the big bang was not widely accepted, and that cosmic inflation was widely ridiculed as unscientific non-sense by the astronomy/cosmology community; people didn't like Alan Guth or what he said; now its orthodoxy. I would think the fact that there is a debate amongst scientists would be sufficient for the topic of the debate to be called science. linas 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Iantresman 08:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Read above. There is really no "debate". The "actual scientists" in question don't nearly rise to the status of Guth or Gammow. Scientific debates occur within the scientific community. As it stands, pc advocates avoid debating directly with scientists as they have suffered from attempting to orchestrate such events in the past. --71.57.90.3 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Alfvén won the Nobel Prize for physics, sorry it's not good enough for you. Surely you're not suggesting that plasma scientists are inferior to astronomers? The latest conference that discussed aspescts of plasma cosmology was held at ICOPS 2006, the second paragraph starts "We invite you to attend". The next publication on the Plasma Universe and related subjects will appear in the peer-reviewed IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science in 2007, published by the IEEE Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society which has 30,000 members. I'll look forward to reading your paper therein. --Iantresman 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd visit for a while. I see that Scienceapologist, the big bang's chief advocate, is still hard at work trying to disassemble plasma cosmology with nonsence arguments. Meanwhile is plasma astrophysics considered part of plasma cosmology? Because if it is, then there is a paper developed around plasma astrophysics which presents a good argument that black holes do not exist.

"Heres the quote: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505518 9. Appendix 1 - Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO) Using the Einstein-Maxwell Equations and Quantum Electrodynamics in the context of General Relativistic plasma astrophysics we will show that it is possible to virtually stop and maintain a slow, steady (many Hubble times!) secular collapse of a compact physical plasma object outside of its Schwarzschild radius with photon pressure generated by synchrotron radiation from an equipartition surface magnetic field. To control the rate of collapse, the object must radiate at the local Eddington limit, but from a highly redshifted surface. and "Astrophysicists nowadays generally accept the inevitability of the curvature singularities of black holes 4, however, if GBHC and AGN are observationally confirmed as containing intrinsic magnetic moments, this will be nature’s way of telling us that such singularities are not really permitted to exist. For black holes to exist, gravity must be able to do what no other force of nature can do; namely, to accelerate finite mass to exactly the speed of light."Tommy Mandel 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want an example of how POV pushing takes place here, look at the statement from the article --

Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community[2].

(Did you write that Art?)

(No.) Art LaPella 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, look at the source of that statement, it reads

Prominent plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences." and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies." [1]

How about that for pushing the POV around?

Tommy Mandel

Thanks Guys

You should have kept feeding Tommy Mandel, then he would never have brought his universal plasma consciousness theories over to Crop Circles Which is considerably easier to troll. Entertaining reading though. --Darkfred Talk to me 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, talking about plasma, I wonder how a black hole has magnetic moment, and if a black hole cannot have magnetic moment, then do these observtions of plasma indicate that black holes do not exist? And if black holes do not exist, remember that they are used to explain outflowing energy/matter, then hmmm, maybe that other big hole never did exist either....

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505518

"Astrophysicists nowadays generally accept the inevitability of the curvature singularities of black holes 4, however, if GBHC and AGN are observationally confirmed as containing intrinsic magnetic moments, this will be nature’s way of telling us that such singularities are not really permitted to exist. For black holes to exist, gravity must be able to do what no other force of nature can do; namely, to accelerate finite mass to exactly the speed of light."

Tommy Mandel 02:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is a fact, not a theory

There is no question that most of the Universe is in a plasma state. Plasma is not a conjecture, it is not a hypothesis, it is not a theory, it is a fact of life. That plasma plays a role in cosmology is a no-brainer. THe big bang theory does not allow plasma to enter the picture because big bang cosmology is based on gravity. Being based on gravity, everything in the big bang theory is explained in terms of gravity. If plasma effects were acknowledged, the big bang theory would have to be modified. Modification however would reveal the flaws in the big bang theory. Therefore big bang advocates can not allow plasma effects to be considered. They accomplish this be refusing to debate the critical issues, arguing instead about meaningless semantic issues. If the big bang group can get rid of plasma, then there is no longer a need for a NPOV, and the Big bang theory will by default be the only theory in town. And this, they say, is the NPOV. Tommy Mandel 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have at least said "The big bang theory does not allow plasma to enter the picture as much as plasma cosmology does. Art LaPella 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That's an understatement. The only place plasma is considered in the big bang theory is just after radiation becomes opague. Am I correct about this? Keep in mind that before this was when inflation happened. Because the only way that the plasma could have done what it does is to start from everywhere. Inflation is the mechanism the big bang gets to everywhere fast. Only then does the big bang become valid. Ironic, the big bang uses unimaginable forces to arrive at the same place plasma arrives, and then rather than work with plasma from then on, it ignores plasma from then on, depending only on gravity for further exjplanations, explanation which have led to more impossible entities like black holes (needed to explain outpouring energy) invisible Dark Energy (Needed to explain the hypothetical expansion) and even dark matter (needed to explain rotation) And ALL of this is derived from the ASSUMPTION that redshift is a Doppler effect. Tommy Mandel

The funny thing is that almost any time you read or hear about plasma, it's referred to as hot gas, or glowing gas, or some sort of gas. The fact that it's electricly charged and is controlled mainly by electromagnetic forces as opposed to gravity, esspecially in the devolopment of filaments, is largely ignored. How is it possible at all to get that sort of structure with gravity alone? Besides, I don't see why people must start from a hypothetical begining, esspecially a begining to time and space. [ User: crisnumbertwo| cris morton]

Hubble did not believe in an expanding Universe

Scienceapologist, you reverted my mention that Hubble did not believe in expansion. Then you referrred to it as nonsence. You are lieing Scienceapologist, because you know that Sandage went into some detail about how Hubble did not believe in expansion "to his dying day" I have posted the references but you deleted them. You, a big bang supporter, who apparently does not have enough confidence in your favorite theory to let the truth come out, delete evidence, and then say there isn't any. You demean plasma cosmology and the editors constantly. You do not belong here, why are you here? Why are you a big bang supporter so concerned about the other theory?" It sure isn't to make sure that we get all our information out. You appear to be trolling.

Tommy Mandel 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Hubble did not believe in an expanding Universe

And therefore it is wrong/mistaken/deceptive/lieing to write that Hubble proved the Universe is expanding.

Scienceapologist, you reverted my mention that Hubble did not believe in expansion. Then you referred to it as nonsence. You are lieing Scienceapologist, because you know that Sandage went into some detail about how Hubble did not believe in expansion "to his dying day" I have posted the references but you deleted them. You, a big bang supporter, who apparently does not have enough confidence in your favorite theory to let the truth come out, delete evidence, and then say there isn't any. You demean plasma cosmology and the editors constantly. You do not belong here, why are you here? Why are you a big bang supporter so concerned about the other theory?" It sure isn't to make sure that we get all our information out. You appear to be trolling.

Tommy Mandel 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to edit in this about Hubble's true feelings about expansion. The information comes from a reputable source, THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE D ASTRONOMIE DU CANADA Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621 EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953 and it is authored by a reputable person, By Allan Sandage and his paper was about Hubble's role. And the year the centennial of the birth of Hubble. And it said stuff like "But interesting as the personal aspects of the life of great scientists are in understanding how they arrive at solutions, the solutions themselves must be independent of the personality. Otherwise, the results have no objective reality."

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

Now, scienceapologist, I submit this as my evidence, and can state that it is a fact that Hubble did not believe in expansion. Instead the man admitted to what a true scientist has to admit to, he didn't know what caused it.

It is a lie to state otherwise. It is naive to say it is nonsense. And it is destruction of evidence if you delete this fact.

What you should/could say is so? Well the rest of the story is building. Tifft tells us that his measurements, measurements which have been verified many times over, indicate a redshift periodicity - the redshift is quantized. A quantized redshift is not consistent with expansion. Well, we could be living in an onion-like system. A quantized redshift is actually evidence that the redshift is not Doppler caused. It was explained that a Doppler effect would blur the periodicities out.

So we have Hubble not believing in expansion, and we have Hubble's opinion/conclusion that expansion did not happen. So far you have worked to kep these facts from coming out. THe excuse about the quantized redshift was that it is not a plasma cosmology invention/convention. And your excuse for Hubble is that it is nonsense. Who are you to say it is nonsense?

Tommy Mandel 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe ScienceApologist agrees with you about Hubble's opinion, but disagrees with you about whether Hubble's opinion is much more significant today than Aristotle's. Art LaPella 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to read Sandage's account of the life of Hubble, you would clearly see that Hubble was not the kind of person that gets old. So, you have decided that SA is more trustworthy than Hubble? Because Hubble was so long ago? Did you ever hear of Prior research? It is part of the scientific landscape. It means that a scientist cannot say anything without doing the prior research. Just because one is not a scientist doesn't mean that the prior research is not relevant anymore. Tommy Mandel 23:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be misrepresenting SA but my point was, if SA considers your statement of Hubble's opinion to be irrelevant rather than wrong, then he isn't lying or destroying useful evidence - he's removing what he perceives as irrelevant. Art LaPella 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Scienceapologist does not have any say, his opinion does not matter one bit. What matters is if it was said. Of course Sciencapologist has to deny the evidence exists, because if he admitted it, the big bang theory would self destruct. He will fight this to his dieing day. It is not his decision if it is relevant or not, he is a big bang supporter, all he can do here is make us go by the book. He does not write it. And it is relevant because your so-called community of professionals are telling us that Hubbles proved expansion, and coming from any professional that is a lie.

And furthermore, the notion of Doppler effects was not a direct observation, but an assumption. The entire big bang theory rests on this singular assumption that redshift means expansion. It never has been proved, and in fact has been disproved.

So how does Scienceapologist get rid of quantized redshift? Oh, I remember, that wasn't discovered by a plasma cosmologist, therefore it is not appropriate on the plasma cosmology article. Tommy Mandel 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I lost that train of thought starting with the first sentence. If you use the word "lying", then in addition to the obvious Wikipedia:No personal attacks problem, you have to prove he said something that isn't his opinion; therefore his opinion matters. Art LaPella 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Let me explain - Doppler Redshift is is foundational in Big bang theory. It purports a changing universe, and implies that this change, if taken to it's logical end, has a beginning. Some have assumed this beginning must be a point and thus a big bang was called for. IF redshift is not a Doppler effect, then there is no reason to assume a change, and without a change there is no cause for a point beginning. Without a point beginning there is no reason for inflation.

With no point beginning and no inflation, we find that plasma exists by default in that state which the big bang theory eventually arrives at in its journey from a point to everywhere. So plasma cosmology differs from the big bang in that there is no point beginning to begin with. What is called "precision cosmology" is actually the physics after plasma. But the big bang does not consider plasma in every situation, instead it tries to focus on gravity alone. And to make that work, they have had to come up with invisible energy and matter, hypothetical entities yet to be detected. So much of big bang cosmology is constructed on yet to be verified energy and matter, some of which would have to had to use a different kind of physics than what we know of. SA knows full well the significance of redshift, and the FACT that argubably the world's greatest astronomer did not believe in expansion, and had the integrity to admit that he didn't know what caused reshift, is very relevant in any cosmological theory. So my claim is that SA seleted it not because it was irrelevant, but because he understood the relevancy. So when he says "that is nonsense" he is not mistaken, or ignorant, he is lying about it. Specifically, he is telling what he knows is not true.

Quantized redshift was observed by Tifft and confirmed many times since. It has been stated that a Doppler effect would blur the periodicities, they cannot co-exist together. Quantized redshift is evidence that redshift is not Doppler related. SA knows this, and will not admit quantized redshift evidence in the plasma cosmolgy article because it was not discovered by a plasma cosmologist.

According to SA, the fact that he is wrong is not relevant.

Your friends, Art, are cheating.


Tommy Mandel 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Or to summarize it less charitably, you're retracting "his opinion does not matter one bit" and replacing it with a claim about his opinion: "what he knows is not true". Do you also retract the comment that drew my original objection: "Hubble did not believe in expansion...It is a lie to state otherwise"? To my knowledge, SA has never stated otherwise. He calls it "nonsense" but I believe he means it's irrelevant, not wrong. If we can agree on that, then maybe we can agree on this: Is Hubble, arguably the world's greatest astronomer of his time, still arguably the highest authority today, despite his ignorance of microwave background studies and Hubble Telescope data? Art LaPella 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Please define "objective evidence" for us.

Tommy Mandel 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Objective": "7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective)." (Dictionary.com)

"Evidence": "1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." (ibid.) Art LaPella 04:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

For the record...From Wikipedia NPOV page

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Tommy Mandel 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Art LaPella 22:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Debate

Why is this discussion page being used for scientific debate (by both plasma and big bang folks). Surely the purpose of the article and, by extension, the discussion of its development and content should be focussed on describing the theory, where to find further information on the theory, and who has been involved in its development and popularisation (or the converse). I don't give a crap whether big bang cosmology is right, or plasma cosmology, or even baked bean cosmology. I just want to be told about those theories. I don't think the editors should be attempting to find peer reviewed evidence of the theory's correctness, just evidence that what is in the article does, indeed, approximate the theory (or collection of variants thereof). -- Tristan Wibberley 11 October 2006

While it hardly rises to the standards of "scientific debate", your point is well-taken. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, as long as the idea is described in the article and the relevant criticisms are included. --ScienceApologist 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken (lying?) ScienceApologist. You do not allow relevant criticisms of your favored theory. You include an opposing viewpoint in all your unfavored theories. Your words sound good, your actions are not honest. Tommy Mandel 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could I interject and clarify that Tommy Mandel obviously meant to say that in his understanding ScienceApologist was possibly mistaken, instead of indicating that ScienceApologist had lied. Thanks. Addhoc 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The debate occurs because ScienceApologist is a big bang supporter and he is here, he says, at plasma cosmology to help the editors. To help the editors he has managed to dismantle plasma cosmology, and make it look like a creationist pseudoscience when in fact it is his theory that is untestable and a favorite among the creationists. And this in spite of the fact the most of the Universe is in a plasma state.Tommy Mandel 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the following excerpt from the article an example of the rigorous science?

Redshifts
Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon
that is summarized by Hubble's law
in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts.
Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim
that this observation indicates an expanding universe.
Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community.[2]


Perhaps you can tell me how you get from Hubble's law, which is not in dispute, to an expanding Universe? The fact that there is a relationship between redshift and distance, does not even imply, let alone prove, that there is an expansion going on. What the article has done is publish a misleading statement, and attibute the confusion to plasma cosmologists. I wonder if youse guys really didn't catch this error, or if you purposely wrote it that way...I wonder. And then you will not allow the real evidence of no Doppler redshift effect into the article. I think you know what you are doing. In case you don't get it, what you did is state a scientific law, and state that PC's dispute that law. That dispute, if it in fact did occur, would be a serious flaw in the reasoning powers of PCs. But that dispute has not occured, it is the Doppler interpretation that Plasma cosmologist do not accept.

What you have "done" is seriously compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Tommy Mandel 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. It says "Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates an expanding universe", which is what you said. Where does it say plasma cosmologists dispute Hubble's law itself? Art LaPella 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology does not dispute Hubbles redshift/distance law. It does not assume, as the standard theory does, that redshift also means velocity. Get it?Tommy Mandel 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous post is (presumably) correct, but my question was, "Where does it say plasma cosmologists dispute Hubble's law itself?" If the article doesn't say that, then "In case you don't get it, what you did is state a scientific law" [Hubble's] "and state that PC's dispute that law" [where?] is false. Art LaPella 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


As a (I think) neutral party, I think the quoted text is on the right track. It highlights the significant difference from the theories that the reader is most likely to be aware of and basic foundation for the theories that this article is about, granted its not a sophisticated analysis, but it is an important introduction for the lay reader. It would be helpful, though, if it said "Plasma cosmologists dispute the claim of standard cosmology that this observation indicates an expanding universe." This wording refers to "plasma cosmologists" rather than "adherents to plasma cosmology" for brevity and to exclude the opinions of non-specialist fans, and is precise about who's claim is being disputed. TristanDC 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (BTW I'm the Tristan that started this section)
I don't really disagree, but you seem unaware of previous debate over the phrase "plasma cosmologist". Art LaPella 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So let's argue about names for a long while, maybe we will forget what was just said. 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmologist" is equivocal because there are some cosmologists who study plasmas who are not adherents to plasma cosmology. "Adherent to plasma cosmology" is not equivocal. --ScienceApologist 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I have read through the previous debate on the term "plasma cosmologist", and I'll throw in my opinion. A plasma cosmologist is a cosmologist who specializes in the effects of plasma in the cosmos. A cosmologist who studies plasmas as part of overall studies of the cosmos (without adhering to plasma cosmology) is generically called a "cosmologist". Much like a surgeon vs a brain surgeon, or a biologist vs a marine biologist. IMHO, "plasma cosmologist" is as understandable and acceptable as "orthopedic surgeon" or "fighter pilot". ABlake 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. But it won't be enough Tommy Mandel 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Since there are cosmologists who specializie in the effects of plasma in the cosmos who reject plasma cosmology, using the term "plasma cosmologist" is unnecessary equivocal and does not convey the meaning that the writers promoting the term think that it should have. Namely a "plasma cosmologist" is not a person who practices "plasma cosmology" as you point out. --ScienceApologist 17:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
After doing a bit of thinking and searching on the internet, I'm changing my vote to agree with ScienceApologist. Plasma cosmology is a separate paradigm within cosmology that is apart from the scientific specialty of a plasma cosmologist. A plasma cosmologist may or may not subscribe to plasma cosmology, so it would be appropriate to say that someone is a plasma cosmologist and supporter (or non-supporter) of plasma cosmology. ABlake 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How did we get to plasma cosmology and plasma cosmologist are what?Tommy Mandel 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • When we pop down to our local chemist, do we expect someone in a lab coat and assume that they synthesize the aspirins they sell? When a four-star general inspects his men, do we assume that there won't be any women?
  • Someone who studies particle physics is a "particle physicist". I don't think that cosmologists who study plasma call themselves plasma cosmologists (plasma astrophysicists?), and I don't think that plasma cosmologists necessary implies support of Plasma Cosmology. Does a Creation Scientist imply scientist?
  • I can find no references to "plasma cosmology" that does not involve "plasma cosmology". In the context it's used, I don't think it's going to "fool" anyone. --Iantresman 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ian, I think this is a horribly miniscule point to be bothering with in the first place, but since it came up, I commented. As I thought about it, in this case there appears to exist a legitimate difference between an accepted theory referred to as "plasma cosmology" and a plasma cosmologist (someone who studies plasma cosmology). In this context, I agree that nobody would get confused, which is why I think it is such a small issue. I don't know of any instances of scientists who call themselves plasma cosmologists without being adherants to plasma cosmology (the theory). You bring up a good question (for ScienceApologist to answer since he is the one who actually cares about this) about what plasma cosmologists (scientists) call themselves if not plasma cosmologists (adherants to the theory of plasma cosmology). Since he is the one firmly against the use of the term in this case, the burden of reason is on him, and the weight of context may render his reasons pointless. Either way, I don't care. I can see his point, but in this context, I think it is irrelevant since the people we are refering to in the article verifiably call themselves plasma cosmologists. Let's see what he says... ABlake 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. No, it is relevant. look at all the time and space it wasted. He does this, I think, purposely. Tommy Mandel 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that plasma cosmologist is an unverified neologism that is equivocal. Wikipedia has a policy on not using neologisms. It is rightly avoided to recuse the problem that Lerner may not actually be a "cosmologist". --ScienceApologist 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Plasma cosmologist is a compound phrase derived from the word "cosmologist" which has been around since 1792. "Plasma" was coined by Langmuir in the 1928.
  • As for whether Lerner is cosmologist, it's not for you to decide as you are not verifiable. If you can find a reliable source indicating the academic requirements to be a "cosmologist", then fine. Otherwise I'll take a standard dictionary definition: someone who study or researches the subject, and Lerner's peer reviewed articles are consistent. --Iantresman 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, you have in the past explained that your purpose in these exchanges is to keep people from having the impression that Lerner is a competent individual (or something to that effect). You have sought to do this by openly criticizing him (background, education, published articles, associates, company, etc), citing others who criticize him and his work, and seeking to define or disqualify the use of terms like "plasma cosmologist" in such a way that it doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia. I'm just pointing out a trend.
  • Lerner's personal page has been cleaned up, referenced, and is now roughly acceptable. This last discussion has brought up (again) the issue of the term "plasma cosmologist". Your argument is that it is 1) a neologism, 2) equivocal, and 3) not applicable to Lerner, who is cited in this page and others. If these are your claims, then you must be able to support each one. After looking up the policy on "neologism", I request that you 1) please explain how new "plasma cosmologist" is, 2) how it is not understandable, not definable, or give evidence of multiple meanings (WP:NEO), and finally 3) provide verifiable evidence that Lerner "may not actually be a cosmologist". Iantresman has repeatedly asked you for this information and provided information to the contrary, but you have not provided the requested materials. Please either provide it as requested or drop the issue. As I said before, I don't care either way, but you two are continuously arguing across several pages on this same subject without coming to a conclusion. This is my attempt to get the matter settled. Arbitration would be unnecessary if you could hammer this out once and for all in a civil and factual manner. ABlake 02:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


1) "Plasma cosmologist": try a search of the abstract services and it doesn't show up even while "plasma cosmology" does. That means that the academic field doesn't recognize it as a term. Try it on google and the term shows up only in the realm of amateur coinage [10]. For example, thunderbolts.info uses it, as does holoscience.com, theosophy-nw.org, and plasmacosmology.net You don't see Peratt's or Lerner's pages showing up because they don't even use the term. Go ahead, go through all of the sites that use "plasma cosmology" and find one that comes from a self-respecting plasma physicist or cosmologist. You can't find it, it doesn't exist. 2)Already gave the problem: there are cosmologists who study plasma who are not plasma cosmologists. Why exclude them from the term "plasma cosmologist"? The term frankly isn't understandable and definable because it uses plasma as an adjective in a fashion akin to "plasma physics" but it means something entirely different. It's equivocal, not in common use, and simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 3) The term "cosmologist" may or may not be applicable to Lerner, isn't for us to judge one way or the other. The term "plasma cosmologist" would apply to Lerner only if the term wasn't a neologism. As soon as we have verifiable and reliable sources that define "plasma cosmologist" to mean "adherent to plasma cosmology", then I'll be all in favor of using the term. But as it is, we have an amateurish neologism. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Anthony Peratt (mentioned in the article), confirmed that he considers himself to be a plasma cosmologist.[11]
  • The designation is used in the peer-reviewed article "The Pillars of Cosmology: A Short History and Assessment" by Jeff Kanipe in Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 115 (ScienceApologist, note how the page number in my citation is useful, and my very point in the discussions in the article on Reshift,(Talk:Redshift#Poor_notes)
  • The term is used in various books:
  • Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality, by William C Mitchell, p.260
  • The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner, p.14
  • Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist, by John Michell, p.208
  • Lost Discoveries : The Ancient Roots of Modern Science--from the Babylonians to the Maya, by Dick Teresi, p.185
  • Space: Frontier of the Mind, From Triangle to 10th Dimension, by Ludwig Auer, p.432
  • Towards the Edge of the Universe: A Review of Modern Cosmology, by Stuart Clark, p.135

--Iantresman 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I like how Ian thinks it's okay for him to do original research with Tony Peratt even while criticizing me for not including page numbers in references to a completely different article. Typical of Ian's tendentious POV-pushing agenda, he seems content to attack in whatever double-standard he desires, trying to obscure his own advocacy in the guise of Wikilawyering and martyrdom. Perhaps we should expect this from the Velikovskian who is angry that the mainstream academic world considers his beliefs to be pseudoscience and just plain idiocy. But this is Wikipedia and we're supposed to try to leave our preconceptions at the door. I only hope that as the arbcom case plays out that Ian begins to realize how disruptive his activities here are.

When the cranks and New Age philosophers that Ian listed above adopt a term, that does not make the term suddenly not a neologism. The closest Ian has to showing it's not a neologism is a cite to a work by a science writer, Jeff Kanipe, who uses the term once in an article that is mostly about plasma cosmology. Again, this I point out is not a term in common use by those actively involved in research in the field and is never used in a critical sense. It's like calling William Dembski a "design theorist".

--ScienceApologist 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Question 1. How old is the term?
SA didn't answer, but Ian gave the following examples:
  • Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality (2002), used 1 time
  • Big Bang Never Happened (1991), used 1 time
  • Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist (2005), used 1 time (describing Alfven)
  • Lost Discoveries (2002), used 1 time
  • Space:Frontier of the Mind (2003), used 1 time
  • Towards the Edge of the Universe (1999), used 2 times
My impression is that "plasma cosmologist" is used rarely and (other than Lerner's book) used only in the last few years. It is a neologism. Additionally, the books quoted are not widely-read or reputable (authoritative) sources.
Question 2. Is it equivocal?
SA answered describing the use of the term as a theory is separate from the use as a scientist. Ian sees an appropriate connection and doesn't think people are confused.
My impression is that there is a distinction between the theory and the scientist, but I also don't think people will be confused. This is almost a non-issue since the scientists who study plasmas but don't believe in plasma cosmology do not refer to themselves as plasma cosmologists. The term is a neologism, which can be appropriate at times WP:NEO. Is it understandable? Yes. Is it definable? Yes. Does it have multiple meanings? Slightly, but as mentioned, nobody should get confused in this context.
Question 3. Is there evidence that Lerner is (or is not) a cosmologist?
SA doesn't have a problem with Lerner being called a cosmologist if the term isn't a neologism, if it was properly defined, and if Lerner met the criteria. Ian indicates that since Lerner (or other researchers) study plasma cosmology, the term is self-explanatory.
My impression is that Lerner does engage in the study of space plasmas and make theories regarding cosmology. He does not hold a graduate degree in the field, so his title would have to be popularly or self-appointed. Since the population who ascribes the title to him appears to be less than 30 people (a guess), it is a neologism and not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia without further clarification.
  • Therefore, my suggestion is that if the term is to be applied, it must be explained as a neologism and defined in the article (for clear context), and it must be explained that anyone who uses the title does so by their own will or that of a small community.
Is that fair? Comments? ABlake 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In principle, sure. A quick note, Lerner has never denied, or tried to hide, that he does not have a Ph.D, and it is described on his biography page. As for the term "cosmologist" or "physicist", I have asked others several times, for verification that a Ph.D is required before someone can be called as such. I previously provided a number of sources that suggest that you don't (see Talk:Eric Lerner), and it seems reasonable that others provide sources that you do. --Iantresman 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why jump through hoops trying to explain a neologism when there are ways around it? "Plasma cosmology advocate" works fine, doesn't it? Bogging the reader down in a linguistic game of neologism explanation is not going to help explain anything (except, perhaps, how controversial the topic is on Wikipedia). --ScienceApologist 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason I suggested changing "Adherents to plasma cosmology" to "plasma cosmologists" was to avoid discussing the opinions of fans and making it look like plasma cosmology is defined by "adherents". "advocates" is better, but it still sounds like this fundamental principle is just something important to supporters rather than a key part of the scientific theory. I see the problem with "plasma cosmologist" and agree with your opposition to it, how about "Plasma cosmology theorists dispute the claim of standard cosmology that this observation indicates an expanding universe."? TristanDC 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, rereading that, it's horrible. Can we skip who is doing the disputing and just say "One of the key assumptions of plasma cosmology is that this observation does not indicate an expanding universe." That explains its own significance and has the added benefit of not belittling the scientific merit of standard cosmology because it no longer calls the doppler-like interpretation merely a "claim" TristanDC 23:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. It's best to avoid words like "theorist" which tend to be very weasly unless discussing someone who preferentially does theory over observational analysis. --ScienceApologist 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made this change [12]. TristanDC 15:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with references

The references in support of this theory are dominated (to the exclusion of almost all else) by a single author, who is also an editor. WP:NOT a soapbox. If no other sources exist then we should probably have a drastically shorter article. Guy 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! After all, the Universe is only 99% plasma. So after SA manages to delete all the evidence, maybe we can shorten it to nothing. Tommy Mandel 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article might be, if it was unsupported by peer-reviewed sources. There are other authors cited, such Hannes Alfvén, C.-G. Falthammar and Anthony Peratt. I think that Lerner appears to have more citations that most since he is able to provide more detailed citations that the other authors. For example, the section "Alfvén's model" is relatively sparse of citations, but we'll try and make up this deficiency. --Iantresman 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Leading image

The reference to the leading image was to a paper by Alfven which had a similar yet different image in it. There are a number of problems with including the image that was uploaded to this page, the least of which is that it represents original research on the part of the person who made the image (Ian Tresman). Since the paper isn't strictly about cosmology either (and neither is the image) I have removed it. Discuss here. --ScienceApologist 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant SA! Good Job, calling an image of verifiable data original research, You are so smart. Tommy Mandel 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. The image is in Peratt's article (you can compare it there), and the description notes that it is based on Alfvén's illustration and description in his article. This is all verifiable. --Iantresman 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As is the fact that the burden is on those seeking to include content to justify that inclusion, so SA's removal of the image for discussion here is legitimate and should stand until consensus is reached to include it. Guy 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The images had been part of the article for almost an entire year,[13], and the recent query was over the wording of the caption [14](see comment near end). ScienceApologist's beef was that:
  • The mention of Alfvén was inappropriate,[15], and a citation was provided showing otherwise,[16]
  • Then he decides it was original reasearch,[17], and more clarification was provided showing otherwise,[18]
The usual way to edit such material is to add a {{fact}} tag, not to hack chunks out of an article, which no-one else, even ScienceApologist, had queried for 12 months. --Iantresman 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, you have the citations in the caption, it is an easy matter to check them --Iantresman 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the old tactic of moving the goalposts. Either you use Peratt's image and attribute it to him or you use Alfven's image and attribute it to him, but I am of the opinion that Alven's image is not strictly about Plasma Cosmology, so I think you should just call a duck a duck, include Peratt's image, attribute it to Peratt and call it a day. Changing the reference to only Alfven's paper was a very sneaky move, Ian. Since the image should have been cited to Peratt's paper, the only reason that we can surmise you are doing this is because you want to see Alfven up front rather than Peratt. I wonder why. --ScienceApologist 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alfvén is the primary source whom Peratt is describing (and credits). The illustration strictly describes the "Plasma Universe" of which Plasma cosmology is a part. If you recall, you insisted on redirecting the article on the Plasma Universe to this article because you felt they were similar, or associated. This makes the illustration relevant, and it right to attribute both Peratt and Alfvén, the illustration being more like Peratt's, the text being sourced to Alfvén. --Iantresman 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)--Iantresman 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Peratt made the image you want. If you want to include it, cite Peratt. If you want to include Alfven's image, you'll have to make a case for it. --ScienceApologist 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Peratt's article? --Iantresman 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Peratt bases his ideas on an image from Alfven's paper. If you use the ideas from Peratt's paper, cite Perrat, not Alfven.--ScienceApologist 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Peratt's image and caption are based on Alfvén's Fig.6 illustration and description. To cite Peratt without mentioning Alfvén is wholly misleading. It would be like citing a third party commentator describing Hubble's law, without mentioning Hubble. --Iantresman 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
However, you cited Peratt an only mentioned Alfven. That was misleading. Peratt isn't exactly a "third party commentator" either as he arguably rescued Alfven's speculations from obscurity. When it gets right down to it, it's Peratt's image, not Alfven's and since Alfven didn't approve of Peratt's image, it is not appropriate to claim it is Alfven's. If you want to use Alfven's Fig. 6 illustration, then you'll have to show that it is relevant to the article. --ScienceApologist 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to use Peratt's image. It's prettier. Peratt's image and caption are based on Alfvén's. How would you word it, giving each person their due. --Iantresman 21:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would word it is follows:

Anthony Peratt included this image in a paper describing the "plasma universe". He states that the image is based on a similar one used by Hannes Alfvén.

--ScienceApologist 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What useful information does this tell the reader? It says nothing about the image, nor the theory it illustrates. --Iantresman 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire. It states who made the image and what he based it on. --ScienceApologist 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The reader does not care. The reader wants the illustration explained, and by all means we can credit the image and theories they illustrate. --Iantresman 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The reader doesn't care who made the image and what he based it on? Really? --ScienceApologist 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


So this is my caption versus yours? If it's accurate I'll ask for other opinions --Iantresman 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman's caption ScienceApologist's caption
Hannes Alfvén urged the application of the results of laboratory plasma experiments to inaccessible space plasmas, and, on the other hand, using observational data from interstellar and intergalactic plasma phenomena to help understand laboratory plasmas. (Click image to enlarge)

(Ref: Anthony Peratt, "Guest Editorial: Electrical Engineering, Plasma Science, and the Plasma Universe" (Dec 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, VOL. PS-14, NO 6. Based on the illustration by: Hannes Alfvén, "Model of the Plasma Universe", (Dec 1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, VOL. PS-I4, NO 6.. Alfvén wrote: :"... the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere, we can depict this extrapolation as a "knowledge expansion" which started from laboratory research. With the advent of the space age, which made possible in situ measurements in the magnetospheres (including solar magnetosphere ≡ heliosphere ≡ solar wind region), the knowledge expansion increased in strength and is now on its way to reach out as far as spacecraft go. :It is very important that it proceed further out. Indeed, astrophysics will be changed very much when (sooner or later) the knowledge expansion reaches interstellar and intergalactic regions. :Extrapolation of laboratory and magnetospheric research demonstrates that the plasma universe has properties that differ from those of the traditional visual universe in many respects." Similar illustration and explanation available online (see page 67), in Alfven, H., "Cosmogony as an extrapolation of magnetospheric research" (1984) Space Science Reviews (ISSN 0038-6308), vol. 39, Sept.-Oct. 1984, p. 65-90)

Anthony Peratt included this image in a paper describing the "plasma universe". He states that the image is based on a similar one used by Hannes Alfvén.

Your proposal is wholly unacceptable because it attribute to Hannes Alfven what is actually done by Tony Peratt. --ScienceApologist 13:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If the illustration was created by Peratt, it should be labeled and referenced thus. If it was based on the ideas or a similar chart by Alfven, that should be explained and referenced also. My thought is that the chart has more to do with the study of plasma cosmology than on its ideas and conclusions. I think a better chart could be made or found somewhere. To me, this chart doesn't help me understand at a glance what the key ideas of plasma cosmology are. ABlake 13:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the chart is used to illustrate the study of plasma cosmology, but perhaps your suggestion of an alternative illustration is better, though I'm not sure I am aware of one. Ordinarily I'd make up one myself, but I'm not going to put in the effort when it will be criticized by others as original research.
  • As for attribution of the current image, my citation makes it clear where the information comes from (ie. primarily credited to Peratt, and acknowledged that it is based on Alfvén's). --Iantresman 14:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason you hide the primary credit in the reference rather than stating it in the caption? --ScienceApologist 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Show me any other image on Wikipedia, where we emphasize who the image is credited to (other than pages on artwork), rather than describe what the images is illustrating?
  • The image illustrates Alfvén view. The caption describes Alfvén's view. Peratt says it is based on Alfvén's view. Peratt does not add to that view. The caption is factually accurate, and verifiable. The statements are correctly and accurately cited.
  • When people write about Einstein, and illustrate his work, they don't say "here is my illustration", they describe Einstein's view, and perhaps the illustrated is acknowledge at the end.
  • If you want, we can add the clause "Image by Ian Tresman, based on an image by Anthony L. Peratt, based on an illustration by Hannes Alfvén", and although it is accurate, it is not very helpful, and I am sure that readers does not care one bit. --Iantresman 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The image does not "describe Alfven's view". It describes Peratt's view of Alfven's view. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me (and sadly, no one ever does), the image doesn't have that much to say, and it would be no great loss just to leave it out. Particularly if that cuts down the bickering (which it surely won't). --Art Carlson 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that Art C. You say you study plasma then you should know the significane of scalability. Certainly it could have been explained in clear languagem but to describe it as something that someone copied from someone else is absurd, but typical of SA's methods.
I haven't checked yet, but I replaced "spinning" with "spiraling"

betcha that got reverted too.

Didn't there used to be a whole section on MHD? And wasn't there a controversy about it in that it left out electrostatics?
We know you're not shy in coming forward, so the comments are always open invitations to comment, and I'm delighted that you have. And if the general feeling is that the image is not very good, then so be it. --Iantresman 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I removed some of the general discussion of plasmas from the lead per recommendations from the guidelines on how to write this. We need to make sure the reader knows what plasma cosmology is. I agree that we need to define plasmas, but I don't think the lead is the place to do it.

I also started a new "history" section. I think that this section is best placed before the overview since it sets the stage for the current ideas being promoted by Lerner and Peratt. Since Aflven is no longer with us, I think his model features might be best combined with this history section since plasma cosmology as a discipline has moved beyond them. It seems pretty clear that there is a progression from ambiplasma --> Alfven-Klein model --> plasma cosmology according to the literature championed by pc advocates.

--ScienceApologist 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed some false/misleading statemtents but SA has not the courage to discuss them, he simply reverts all of them, That is why I think he lies, he knows what he is doing. Tommy Mandel 04:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I think all of you had better wake up, plasma cosmology is not just about what the early investigators guessed, it includes all studies of plasma outside our atmosphere. It is the study of cosmology from a plasma perspective. To limit it to something from the past is ludicrous, and clearly a violation of NPOV. And to limit it to just a couple researchers is also a sham.

You are not really interested in rigorous science ScienceApologist, you are only interested in your version of science.

"all of you had better wake up" apparently includes the rest of the world, even Ian. Art LaPella 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Art, especially Ian. You too. And especially anyone who would read this. (Go and tell them not to read this) Plasma is a significant aspect of our Universe. Before the big bang theory invented dark Energy, 99% of the Universe is/was plasma. Plasma is EMF and EMF is not covered by a theory of gravity. The big bang is based on the theory of gravity and likewise does not cover EMF. You say that plasma is considered at stage of quark-gluon, and you are right, but then it is all back to gravity. And all this black/dark/incisible stuff is what you need to make gravity work without EMF. The Standard Theory, my friend, includes the Electroweak AND Gravity. Big bang, bsed on the mathematics of General Relativity, takes only gravity into account. Look where that theory gets us - gravity pulls matter inward toward the center, BUT astronomers observe matter flowing OUTWARD as jets and plemes. How can that be Art? How can all that matter be spewed out when it is supposed to be being sucked in? Enter the black hole and the accretion disk. See, here it is, at this point the theory stops. At this point the primary researchers concede that they do not KNOW, all they can do is invent a mechanism which would throw out matter. So they propose a process which in short can be described as reflecting some of the falling matter back out. Now, you want us to think that plasma (cosmology) is ignored, it is not. Is Princeton good enough for you? See Strongs website, his students study the MHD of these flows, jets are radiation plumes are magnetic. Magnetic. Current flows, Ions, electrons, plasma, cosmology. I rehect your argument that plasma cosmology is not about plasma in general. I reject your claim that plasma research is not nearly as detailed as the big bang theory. Isn't it more like the big bang theorists do not know electricity? Gravity does only one thing, but EMF, well look we are alive. A ball of EMF, and what role does gravity play now? You want to know what I think? I think the big bang proponents do not want to accept plasma, because that would put plasma on an equal footing, and when you put plasma on an equal footing, it actually explains a lot of what we observe. So much that maybe we don't need invisible stuff anymore. And that is, I really believe, why you and your friends are working so hard at sterilizing this article.

I replaced this irrelevant statement:

[]While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional cosmology community.[1]

with this important and timely statement My source is the astronomy program at Princeton

The study of plasma and it's effects plays a significant role in physical cosmology today.

And guess what? SA reverted it? See what I mean?

152.163.100.66 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The study of astrophysical plasmas is different from plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell me what the difference is between astrophysical and cosmology? Are you trying to tell me that the astrophysical does not enter into cosmology? Are you saying that the astrophysical and cosmology are different categories? Are you telling me that a research program at Princeton investigating outflowing matter using MHD tools is not within the domain of plasma cosmology? Are you saying that evidence of plasma behavoir is not within the boundaries of plasma cosmology research ?
What you are really trying to do SA is create a cult out of plasma cosmology, limit it to how it began, and falsify all the start up ideas, and then slam the door, such that it is "ignored by the professional scientific community."
If you are such a stickler for semantics, then correct that bullshit statement.
BTW, nice job you did with the scaling graphic. Instead of explaining it competently, you choose instead to get rid of it. Your arguments of attribution are irrelevant. The important idea is to let the reader know that plasma has a significant characteristic in that plasma is scalable, what happens on earth is what happens among the stars. But you choose instead to get rid of this valuable information. I used to wonder why.
And Art, when I came aboard, there was no mention of this scalability, and the examples you gave by searching for scal produced words like scale. I am grateful that the word appears three or our times now, but if you were knowedgable about plasma, you would want to tell everyone about how it is scalable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Mandel (talkcontribs)
Can you tell me what the difference is between astrophysical and cosmology?: You can start out by reading astrophysics and physical cosmology. Then see if you can spot the differences. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that the astrophysical does not enter into cosmology?: Nope. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the astrophysical and cosmology are different categories?: They're different, but I'm not sure they're "categories". --ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you telling me that a research program at Princeton investigating outflowing matter using MHD tools is not within the domain of plasma cosmology?: Yes. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that evidence of plasma behavoir is not within the boundaries of plasma cosmology research?: Sort of. I'm saying that there are people who research plasmas who do not do it in the context of "plasma cosmology". --ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Tommy keeps denying oft-explained facts like that, and then he wants me to trust him about backwards black holes. Art LaPella 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Did it ever occur to you Art that I don't believe you or ScienceApologist? I don't believe you and I don't trust ScienceApologist. I say that with heartfelt passion because I have seen both of you try to hide what is true and distort that which cannot be hidded so that it tells your story, not ours. The example above is just one. It was in that letter of 33, which has since grown to over four hundred, by the signers of a letter of protest by those who do not believe that the big bang theory is the correct theory. And it was in closing that the letter pointed out that most of the reseach grants goes for the big bang theory, and little goes for plasma research. So you take that comment and use it as a sword against plasma cosmology. Find your own peer reviewed journal article source, and leave our letter to whom it may concern alone.


That may be clever of you but it is not honest. The impression you give in the article is not the same impression intended by the source. I really do believe that you and SA are aware of doing this and if so then you are lying to us. I am not saying that you and SA are not entitled to have your own opinion, not at all, but it is troublesome when you foster that belief on others, and especially when it comes out in an encyclopedia, as if it were a fact. It is even more troublesome when others trust you but don't know you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Mandel (talkcontribs)

Plasma based redshifts

I can see why Marmet's non-Doppler redshift is removed, but why is the "plasma redshift" removed? It is a separate redshift theory,[19]? --Iantresman 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This flight-of-fancy and non-peer reviewed idea by a single researcher doesn't seem to be considered by the usual suspects of plasma cosmology. Maybe they're hesitant to accept it because they consider their work to be based on laboratory plasmas and as the author of this speculation submits: "conditions (high temperature and low densities over extended dimensions) necessary for its observation cannot be created in laboratory experiments." It appears that the instance you cited was not to this particular idea. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ari Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift theory is first dated 2000, three years before it is mentioned in Gallo's 2003 article. Gallo and Brynjolfsson are both one of the original signatories on the Open Letter cosmological statement.[20] --Iantresman 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Better history?

ScienceApologist, if you're going to create a history section, let's compile it from verifiable peer reviewed sources. So if Peratt provides us with a such a history, and describes it as such, then that's more relevant than replacing it with a simple glib sentence.[21] And your description is inaccurate. Peratt does not attribute "some ideas" to Birkeland, he attributes "the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" to Birkeland, and that is verifiable.

Likewise if we mention Klein, it should be in the context of a verifiable history. For example, you cite Cosmic electrodynamics, but it neither mentions Klein, nor cosmology, nor baryon asymmetry, nor anti-matter. --Iantresman 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Peratt is a reliable source for his explication of what he believes is the origin of plasma cosmology, but as he mixes conventional explanations with mainstream ones, it is important that we be careful in following his analysis. He doesn't, I might point out, really explain the ambiplasma theory very well in the article you cite, nor does he attribute it to Birkeland, so Birkeland didn't found that aspect of plasma cosmology at least.
Klein is not the only source of the Alfven-Klein model. Ambiplasma was proposed to explain baryon asymmetry.
--ScienceApologist 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We credit Peratt's explanation to Peratt. The reader can interpret it however they like. If you have other reliable sources commenting on Peratt's explanation, or on the history in general, then that's fine.
  • And we'll find other sources that mention (a) the ambiplasma theory (b) the history of plasma cosmology. And whether that source is mainstream, or a "plasma cosmology" source, is fine too. --Iantresman 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So it seems like you are fine with the current wording then. We don't need to include Peratt's nostalgic waxing in Wikipedia, but can simply say he credits Birkeland with being foundational to many of plasma cosmology's ideas. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the current wording says very little, whereas Peratt's description of plasma cosmology history is (a) verifiable (b) provides more background detail. The comment regarding Birkeland and cosmology is irrelevent, as no-one is suggesting he has a cosmology.
  • The information on Klein, may have some relevance, but we need to find a good source that talks about him in the context of plasma cosmology history, otherwise we're guessing about his involvement. --Iantresman 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Peratt is describing more than just plasma cosmology history. If we confine our coverage to discussing the controversial subject which is plasma cosmology, then Peratt actually says very little about it until he starts discussing Alfven. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Peratt writes: "The year 1996 marks the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and 'Cosmology;; its origins may be traced to"
  • He clearly is attributing Birkeland to the origins of plasma cosmology, and explains why. --Iantresman 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Good to see you're on the same page. Since Peratt is describing more than just plasma cosmology, we cannot use his paper as a guiding source. In particular, it is our job to describe just the "cosmology" aspect. Birkeland is credited with originating some aspects of plasma cosmology, but obviously he didn't develop ambiplasma, for example. --ScienceApologist 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Peratt's paper is about the origins of plasma cosmology. It's content are entirely admissible. You don't rule out an entire paper because he might mention something that is not specifically to do with cosmology. As it is, the quote is directly related to the origins if plasma cosmology, and he says so, and it's verifiable.
  • Correct, Birkeland had absolutely nothing to do with Klein, antimatter, nor ambiplasma. He also had nothing to do with Hubble, Einstein or Arp. And we won't say so. --Iantresman 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to paraphrase a perspective especially if the perspective is about more than just the subject at hand. Peratt is writing about more than just plasma cosmology. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to paraphrase his opinion of Birkeland's contributions to the subject. --ScienceApologist 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And the quote makes it quite clear. --Iantresman 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are rambling and don't add much to explaining the content of this page. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is typical to do a history in chronological order, whereas you've placed the origins of plasma cosmology at the end of the section
  • You've removed the dates, arguably the most important aspect of history.
  • You say what Birkeland didn't do, which is complete irrelevant, and not verifiable.
  • We now say that Birkeland may have originated some of the ideas for plasma cosmology, and we help the reader by not telling them what they are! --Iantresman 16:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of these issues you are illustrating are problems with the inadequate descriptions of the discipline provided by its main proponents. Plasma cosmology itself is poorly defined, so there is some sense that nearly anything can go on this page as long as it is said by Peratt and Lerner who are reliable sources only inasmuch as they are the main promoters of the concept. Peratt states that Birkeland currents are important in cosmology, but he is very vague as to a characterization of exactly how they are important and how influential they are - his quotes are laudatory red herrings with respect to the content of this article. When Peratt states that Birkeland's ideas regarding electrical currents in the cosmos are important to plasma cosmology, he doesn't say why that is, it is merely stated as trivia. So we have a big problem since Peratt is stating that Birkeland is important to the history (as the founder) but at the same time he doesn't connect Birkeland to subsequent developments in plasma cosmology (i.e. Alfven, Klein, etc.) --ScienceApologist 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V tells us that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". So yes, Peratt could be making it up for all I care. However, all you have to do is find a reliable source that tells it otherwise, until then, Peratt is the best verifiable source we have.
  • If you look at the history of cosmology, you will discover that most explanations as to "why" are also excluded. This is a history; the article explains why. --Iantresman 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Still "totally disputed"?

As near as I can tell, the {{totally disputed}} has been on the article since February.[22] The article, while still the subject of passionate discussions, seems to me to be reasonably stable. Do we still need the tag? I would at least like to have the disputed points, particularly those of factual accuracy, spelled out so we can concentrate on them. --Art Carlson 10:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of it looks fine by me, certainly not "totally" disputed. --Iantresman 13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the most problematic parts of the article are:

  1. The lack of clarity about plasma cosmology's minority status. In particular, it should be pointed out that there are basically only two researchers who today continue to actively promote pc.
  2. There is not enough coverage on how the mainstream faults plasma cosmology as being incomplete or worse. In particular, Ned Wright's comments are not dealt with at all in the article and neither are the many admittedly off-the-cuff disparaging remarks made about the idea from porfessional cosmologists. Since plasma cosmology is really ignored "rogue science", we don't need to find peer reviewed criticisms, but we do need to indicate that it is outside the mainstream and denigrated.
    I have just worked through Ned Wright and did not find any arguments or information that I thought we could include. Some are included already, most are not referenced and are too subtle for us to just state them as fact. I think we now do a pretty good job of putting the PC arguments into perspective. I await more specific suggestions from you. (I do see that you are working on the article.)
    P.S. Your objections seem to have more to do with POV than with factual statements. Would you consider downgrading to {{POV}}?
    --Art Carlson 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. There are still a lot of incomplete descriptions and an enormous amount of cruft. We need to summarize rather than pontificate. I am attempting with the new history section to put into context the plasma cosmology history (something which basically ended in the mid nineties after COBE anisotropies were discovered).

There are other things I would change, but as far as I'm concerned, the article still has problems with both NPOV and verifiability. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be tough to handle that in a verifiable way and such that the advocates feel their POV has been fairly represented. As a tiny first step, I would like to see a statement like, "In X, Y, and Z, the most widely used textbooks on cosmology, plasma cosmology is not mentioned a single time." Do you think you can put that together? Along the same lines would be "Plasma cosmology was not covered in a recent comprehensive review article on cosmology.<ref>A.B.Soandso, RMP, 200x</ref>" It is harder to deal with the fact that there are peer-reviewed publications, but these are essentially ignored. Do you think we can handle that with some citation statistics? --Art Carlson 14:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll get on it, but in the meantime there is this interesting source [23] by Narlikar which claims that QSSC is the only nonstandard cosmology developed enough to be able to be compared to the standard model. Of course, Narlikar is not a reliable source on this matter, however, I tend to agree that QSSC does a better job at rigor than plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"In X, Y, and Z, the most widely used textbooks on cosmology, plasma cosmology is not mentioned a single time." seems a bit of a harsh turn of phrase. It puts me off studying it which an encyclopaedia shouldn't do. How about something along the lines of "Plasma Cosmology remains far from complete as a cosmological model while others have developed far more rapidly, such as the Big Bang which has garnered the vast majority of scientific and popular mindshare." TristanDC 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, mentioning things that are "not", are endless. And how do we verify "it's far from complete as a cosmological model", and assess the degree of (in)completion?. We tell readers where plasma cosmology is mentioned, and what has been written about it... because that's all verifiable. --Iantresman 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not from a cosmology background; I'm trying to interpret the discussion here to maintain some semblance of readability as an encyclopaedia article rather than let it turn into a politico-scientific debate. So... as I understand it, the Big Bang calculations as they stand have been used to simulate a huge proportion of the observed phenomena, while the calculations for plasma cosmology's have been used to determine the expected sizes of various features, but (as far as I've read) have not been used to simulate a cosmologically significant portion of the universe. *Can* they be used to simulate such a portion? And do they reflect the current observations of the universe? If not, can that be shown to verify that "it's far from complete as a cosmological model"? TristanDC 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a verifiable source assessing it. --Iantresman 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The minority status of plasma cosmology is highlighted clearly in the introduction.
  • That you suggest there are just two active researcher is unsubstantiated rubbish. The Open Letter alone suggests that there are HUNDREDs of others who are sympathetic to varying degrees. The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences has 3000 subscribers who contribute and read about plasma cosmology, and a special issue due in Nov 2007 on the subject suggests more.
Hold your horses, Ian. It is not a requirement to be an active or former researcher in any field, much less in plasma cosmology, to either sign the open letter or to subscribe to TPS. Your better argument is to count the authors in the special issues of TPS. --Art Carlson 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. There have been 6 special issues up to 2003, with another special issue due in 2007. --Iantresman 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion that "we don't need to find peer reviewed criticisms" comes straight out of the definition of pseudoscience (See "Evasion of peer review").
  • Your view of the history of plasma cosmology requires verifiable citation, and not your own version of events.

--Iantresman 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to hold to WP:V. I disagree that peer review criticisms are all we must use because plasma cosmology is ignored in most standard journals, thus making peer reviewed criticisms nearly impossible to find. Not reporting about this appropriately could give the reader the impression that the mainstream didn't find anything wrong with plasma cosmology which would definitely be a contravention of the goal of an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The scientific method requires peer reviewed sources. Wikipedia WP:RS for scientific subjects requires peer reviewed sources. It is required of plasma cosmology that it publishes in peer reviewed sources. But we may be able to get information from tertiary sources such as books published by reputable publishers and authors. But self-published blogs are out.
  • If the "mainstream" found something wrong with plasma cosmology, then it would be published. Otherwise it's as reliable as a non-mainstream critical blog of the Big Bang. --Iantresman 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Self-published blogs are fine for illustrating the personal opinion of a notable scientists. E.g. Ned Wright or Sean Carroll. The mainstream dismissing plasma cosmology won't necessarily be published in a peer reviewed journal. And it's perfectly fine to include a non-mainstream critical blog of the Big Bang on this page as long as it is used to illustrate the personal opinion of a notable objector. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ned Wright does not appear notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia, and Carol gets a few lines. And two lone scientists are not "the mainstream", and to describe them as such is misleading, and included in the list of Weasel words to avoid.[24]
  • Having said that, I have no objection to attributed criticism being included in a section at the end of the article, in line with "fairness of tone": "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."[25] --Iantresman 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to start an article about Ned Wright, it would certainly survive. He is notable enough for Wikipedia, and both these scientists are certainly more successful in cosmology than any of the promoters of plasma cosmology judging by publications to their name and grants won. --ScienceApologist 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Art Carlson request

I would like to request that only Art Carlson contributes to the article based on verifiable material sourced by him, or provided by others. --Iantresman 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Art, Peratt's description of Birkeland's contribution to plasma cosmology can be found in his paper "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology", A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB). Would you propose a couple of sentences that include (a) Some dates (b) What ideas Birkeland contributed. My original version is here.[26] --Iantresman 16:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

More history

  • I can't find any verifiable sources linking Klein to the history of plasma cosmology
  • I can't find the reference to Klein 1950's paper that astrophysical plasmas may play an important role in galaxy formation
  • Are we saying that:
  • Oskar Klein was the first person to proposed plasmas play an important role in galaxy formation (he wasn't)
  • Oskar Klein first proposed plasmas play an important role in galaxy formation in 1950
  • The reference to Alfvén's baryon asymmetry "Cosmic electrodynamics" does not mention the subject, nor does it mention Klein.
  • I can find no verifiable reference confirming that "Alfvén-Klein model — a progenitor of today's nonstandard proposal of "plasma cosmology"." --Iantresman 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't have a source for this paragraph, can we remove it? --Iantresman 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Information required

  • Please provide quotes for the following:
  • An origin in time for the universe is rejected
  • due to the fact that Anthony Peratt is an editor of the periodical
  • Please indicate HOW the mention of dusty plasmas is unclear. If you read the article, it give detailed formula that demonstrate how EM compares to gravity for particle size.
  • Please find an alternative for "a few" researchers, which is described as a Weasel word --Iantresman 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Transactions on Plasma Science

Since the bulk of papers on Plasma Cosmology seem to be published here, I'd like to know a little more about it.

  • The IEEE is certainly a serious organization, but there are some details, quite apart from their support for plasma cosmology, that make me wonder about the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society. (Go to their home page at http://www.ieeetps.org/ and click on the link at the very bottom of the left-hand frame labeled "The Plasma Universe", and you will see what I mean. I brought this to the editor's attention two weeks ago, but he hasn't acted yet.) Not safe for work JBKramer 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Who is in control of the referee process for special issues? ("Guest Editors of the various Special Issues will be able to handle the review process details entirely through the Manuscript Central."[27])
  • What does SA mean, "it is undeniable that Peratt is sponsoring these issues"? Financially? Politically? Is that verifiable?
  • Ian wrote, "There have been 6 special issues [about plasma cosmology] up to 2003, with another special issue due in 2007." Why does a search for the term "cosmology" or "cosmic" on the list of special issues (1994-2005) not produce any hits? Where has the Nov 2007 special issue been announced (not [28]).

--Art Carlson 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More likely http://www.plasmauniverse.com/ --Art Carlson 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa, that's correct --Iantresman 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All issues of the Transactions on Plasma Science are refereed in the same way, as require by all IEEE journals.[29] The Special Issues are just (a) "Themed" (b) May have a guest editor.
  • The upcoming Nov 2007 issue of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is indeed announced here. They are not issues dedicated specifically to "Plasma cosmology", but to "space plasmas", which includes "plasma universe" material, which includes "plasma cosmology" material, and other material which is relevant.
OK, but that means that counting authors is not enough to identify plasma cosmology researchers. We have to look at the topic of each article. --Art Carlson 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I didn't attempt to do so, and I don't think it's easy to count; many researchers would not necessarily specifically label themselves as "plasma cosmology" researchers. Just because someone is researching intrinsic redshift (eg. Arp), does not make them necessarily a researcher of plasma cosmology). --Iantresman 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
--Iantresman 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Peratt has been the reviewer of all the mentioned IEEE special transactions. He has a special relationship with the developers of the transactions. --ScienceApologist 02:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "the reviewer" in the sense of the sole referee on the contents, or co-editor, one of at least two people charged with finding suitable referees and making judgments in the case of mixed reviews? Do you mean "special relationship" in the sense of taking and receiving bribes, or doing such a good job that he is asked to do it again and again, or something else? --Art Carlson 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
In the special issues of the transactions proceedings regarding astrophysics and cosmology, Peratt is someone who is given the status of "Guest Editor". This means he has editorial control over the content and his sympathetic ear toward plasma cosmology is what makes this particular publication a safe-haven. --ScienceApologist 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it does not mean he has the "status" of guest editor, nor does it mean he is the reviewer. And if you're suggesting that his duties are any different from any other editor on any other journal, mainstream of otherwise, please provide a verifiable source.
  • "Guest editor" means he is "guest editor"
  • You also forgot to mention that Peratt co-edits the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science special issues:
  • In 2007 with Dr. Timothy E. Eastman, affiliated with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,[30]
  • The 2003 issue with Carl-Gunne Fälthammar
  • The 2000 issue with S. T. Lai and Nagendra Singh
  • The Aug 1988 Special Issue of Laser and Particle Beams, with Heinrich Hora
  • I am sure that in the interests of impartiality, you will want to mention this... unless you think they are "all in on it" too? --Iantresman 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of these people are signatories to your cosmologystatement, some aren't. But the common thread of these special transactions is Peratt. This is undeniable. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it unusual or objectionable that a special issue of a scientific journal is guest-edited by a leading researcher on the topic of the issue? Is this information so interesting to the reader that we should generally report hard-working editors in other fields of science, too? --Art Carlson 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
With outside-the-mainstream research like this, it may seem confusing to the reader how it could be published in a mainstream journal. Peratt's connections explain this. If it were not for Peratt, there would be no special issues devoted to plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning is a bit circular. The special issues of TPS are lousy because they are influenced by Peratt, and we know that he is lousy because he mostly publishes in special issues of TPS. I know that there are certain constellations that make a topic look more respectable than it is, and sometimes it works the other way around. I don't hink we can draw a very strong conclusion merely from the fact the publications on plasma cosmology are concentrated in a certain series. --Art Carlson 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
(It does strike me as a bit strange, though, that ideas on cosmology end up published by a society devoted primarily to engineering. --Art Carlson 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
I hardly see how simply mentioning that Tony Peratt was the co-editor of these special issues is problematic. People who admire him will be impressed that he was the co-editor. People who are not as enthusiastic about his work may conclude that he is not a reliable editor. Either way, the statement is verifiable. When Peratt is the co-editor plasma cosmology articles show up in the periodical. --ScienceApologist 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem was suggesting that Peratt sponsored the publication, or that his "special relationship" with the publishers was somehow different to that enjoyed by other editors.
  • Peratt is brought in as guest editor because he is an expert in the field; the field is limited. As I've said before, if there are any problems with his work, or the other papers that are published, all you have to do it write and submit your own paper. --Iantresman 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you object to the current wording? I agree with you that Peratt is brought in because of his special relationship to the subject. I have no problems with this, I only want to make sure it is clear that this isn't a "neutral" editorial board evaluating these papers. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would speculate that this is because engineering is an empirical field, as is the plasma physics in the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science; this in turn parallels Alfvén's own views that Plasma Cosmology is primarily empirically based field of research; this is in contrast to Big Bang cosmology which includes a number of ideas that that rely on new physics, such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, cosmological redshift, etc.
It is unfortunate that the ignorance is so prevalent among people like Ian about the evidence for the phenomena he is railing against. While novel phenomena, the physics they are all based on is very much standard and has been vetted and carefully reviewed to a much greater extent than any handwaving that Peratt or Lerner blab about. While it is true that competance is not a prerequisite to edit Wikipedia, we need to make sure that misconceptions such as that promoted in the previous paragraph do not find their way into the article text. In fact, claiming that standard cosmology is "not empirical" or "new physics" is pretty much a good indicator that the person in question has not studied the material they are disputing. This is actually a big problem that the scientific community has with engineers and "applied science" people blundering about in research implications about which they have little to no familiarity. There is a fair number of engineers who are creationists for similar reasons. Ian trumpets his chemistry degree, but I'm fairly certain hasn't taken my suggestion and picked up an introductory astronomy text yet. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • More ad hominems... ignorance... engineers who are creationists... hasn't picked up an astronomy book. These don't look like scientific arguments to me. --Iantresman 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how anyone, even or especially an engineer, can blithly scale laboratory results by 27 orders of magnitude (!) to the Hubble scale. --Art Carlson 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Because they don't scale them blithely --Iantresman 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I took another look at Plasma_scaling#A commonly used similarity transformation. If you want to scale a cosmic plasma with 1% ionization down to a laboratory experiment, you will need (let's see, quick calculation) 10^27% ionization. Good luck! You might also have some problems scaling the universal gravitational constant up by the same ratio for your laboratory experiment. Come on. You can and must use laboratory experiments to learn how plasmas work, but you've got to apply the physical laws you discover to the problem at hand, not just make a blow-up of what you saw. --Art Carlson 12:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The readers of this discussion page (assuming that there are any) may be puzzled by this last exchange and rightfully so.

While Art scorns the idea of extrapolating laboratory results many order of magnitude to the cosmic scale, readers may recall that modern science got its start when people like Galileo and Newton dared to extrapolate experiments on earth many orders of magnitude to the scale of the Solar System, and later beyond to the stars. Extrapolation from laboratory to the cosmos laid the basis for the scientific revolution and has served us well since, as nuclear physics and plasma physics discoveries in the laboratory have successfully been used to explain and even predict a huge range of cosmic phenomena.

On the other hand, much of the basic “physics” used in current cosmology lacks any verification in the laboratory. There is no evidence of existence of the inflation field or of “dark energy” in the laboratory. There have been many dozen of negative experiments searching for non-baryonic matter (dark matter), which should be observed in the laboratory, but never has been. Non-conservation of baryon number (producing more protons than anti-protons, for example) or the inverse process, the decay of the proton, have both been predicted as essential to the Big Bang, but have also never been observed, despite repeated highly sensitive experiments.

Plasma physics, the topic of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. is real physics, tested and confirmed in the laboratory. Until they show up in the laboratory, dark energy, dark matter, and inflation, like the string theory favored by particle theorists, remain at best highly speculative entities, not verified physics.Elerner 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Galileo never extrapolated any terrestrial experiments to the celestial sphere that I'm aware of, unless you're counting his philosophical argument against natural Aristotlean stasis (which is a stretch at best). Newton's extrapolation was quantitatively confirmed by comparing measurable accelerations. This stands in contrast to Peratt's pretty pictures of swirling and your inability to understand error bars and K-corrections. Truly influential scientific discovery relies on understanding measurements, not on innuendo and lack of meaningful predictions. --ScienceApologist 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
More ad hominems, and mis-characterization of Peratt's computer simulations; it is such a shame that you feel that the only way to make your point is to belittle everyone with whom you seem to disagree. I think the evidence shows that Alfvén made a number of successful, influential and meaningful predictions.
"... most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfvén credit for his achievements although many of his basic concepts are now accepted" (ref: Stephen G. Brush, "Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics". IEEE Trans. Plasma Science, Vol. 20 No. 6, Dec 1992)[31] --Iantresman 10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This truce didn't last long. Art LaPella 04:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Granted, the topic of extrapolation in physics is more complex than my one-liner does justice to. I don't think I want to go any deeper right now. Everyone would love to see laboratory evidence of dark matter, and many are working hard to find it. Until the day that it is confirmed or ruled out in the laboratory, we don't have anything other than astronomical observations to base our best guess on. Those observations they make it hard to deny the existence of some kind of cold dark matter (although Eric is able to pull off the trick). --Art Carlson 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The observations indicate one of two things:
  • That if the model of galaxy rotation is correct, then "some kind" of dark matter is indeed required.
  • That the model of galaxy rotation is wrong, in which case dark matter may not be required. (MOND, or, Peratt's approach)
As far as I know, there is no observational evidence that rules out either, and appeals to "incompetence", and "pretty pictures" do not meet the normals standards of scientific criticism. And yes, I'm aware of the recent papers "proving" dark matter over MOND. --Iantresman 11:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that there is virial motion and plasma pressure balance in addition to rotational velocities.
  • Is there any observational evidence that rules out dark matter?
  • Are 'the recent papers "proving" dark matter over MOND' not based on observational evidence?
  • How do you reconcile Peratt's approach with gravitational lensing?
--Art Carlson 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Gravitational Lensing

Plasma cosmology advocates believe that plasma can lens light through scattering-like processes. However, they have never published a quantitative description of how this happens, nor have they applied these ideas to actual observations. For the most part, plasma cosmology tends to stay less-abreast of the trends in cosmology and astrophysics than most undergraduate courses on the subjects. --ScienceApologist 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I might have guessed. Then I suppose they haven't noticed yet that a plasma has a negative index of refraction and would spread light rather than focus it? --Art Carlson 14:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Silly Art, only "dense" plasmas here on Earth diffuse light in such a fashion. The rarefied plasmas of space with their density gradients decreasing as you move outward are supposed to focus light under the right conditions according to our plasma cosmology friends (just don't ask to quantify those conditions). --ScienceApologist 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It does make you wonder how these guys managed to hold down a career in plasma physics, winning the odd Nobel Prize along the way.
  • I guess I missed the paper on assessing how plasma cosmologists keep up to date on cosmology trends. Far from me to wonder how well cosmologists keep up to date on trends in plasma physics, but I think we digress.
  • By the way, ScienceApologist, can you just remind me of the paper in which plasma cosmology advocates believe that plasma can lens light through scattering-like processes? --Iantresman 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Alfven definitely didn't win the Nobel Prize for plasma cosmology, that's for sure. And I would gladly pit any professional cosmologist's familiarity with astrophysical plasmas against Eric Lerner's familiarity with the same subject any day. I would suggest a Billy Madisonesque academic decathalon, but I doubt Eric would agree to such a thing.
The papers in which plasma cosmology advocates describe plasam explanations for gravitational lenses were (not surprisingly) rejected by the dogmatic peer review crumbums and the evil establishment who belong to the cult of the Big Bang and desecrate Alfven's memory every full moon! However, with the advent of the egalitarian internet, we can read all about them online. --ScienceApologist 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can find nothing on Thomas Smid's site to suggest that he is a proponent of "Plasma Cosmology", though he does also have his own views on a Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies. None of these appear to be peer reviewed.
  • If you would like to meet some plasma physicists, I suggest you come along to the next ICOPS 2007, where a Space Plasma Session will be held. --Iantresman 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you saying, Ian? That plasma cosmology has no explanation at all for excess gravitational lensing? Maybe we need to report that. --Art Carlson 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I said that Thomas Smid's theory does not appear to be a "Plasma Cosmology" theory, nor does it appear to be related to scattering, which is how it was described by ScienceApologist. --Iantresman 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
We discussed this some time ago, that plasma cosmology is not anything near a complete and coherent theory, so it's hard to tell what belong to it and what doesn't. But leaving Smid's obvious nonsense aside, I at least have the impression that plasma cosmology in general rejects dark matter. Since a major observation supporting dark matter is gravitational lensing, one of the first homework assignments of plasma cosmology would be to find a plausible explanation for this observation within its own paradigm. Have I overlooked this theory, or is there really a gaping hole? Either way, it likely should be mentioned in the article. --Art Carlson 09:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no published information on Plasma Cosmologists' views of gravitation lensing.
  • Plasma cosmologists are agnostic on dark matter (just as they are on the Big Bang, despite what ScienceApologist writes in the article)
  • I have no problems with it being mentioned, as long as the statement is accurate and sourced. --Iantresman 09:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner are agnostic on either dark matter or the Big Bang. Besides, if a theory is agnostic on everything, it has no content. --Art Carlson 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They may well have their own personal views, and these may or may not coincide with their published scientfic views, and hence what is verifiable. But plasma cosmology is not any one individual, and they don't even all have to agree with each other.
  • I think this distinction is quite important. Ask most cosmologists whether they believe the Big Bang happened, and I think the consensus will be that it did. Ask most cosmologists to state in writing whether they believe it happened, or, whether they believe that the Big Bang is the best cosmological theory on the table, I think they would keep their belief to themselves, and go with the best theory description. One view is scientific (and agnostic), the other isn't.
  • It seems reasonable to assume that Lerner thinks that "The Big Bang Never Happened". Personally, I don't think the Big Bang happened either. Could it have happened? Absolutely, it's been known for an incompetent lay person to be wrong. ScienceApologist believes that the Wolf effect is not a redshift, whereas I know many professionals in optics who have stated otherwise. We all assess the evidence in different ways. I know who I believe. --Iantresman 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We're getting rather far afield, but since you offered to expose your belief concerning the Big Bang, would you mind telling us whether you think dark matter exists? If you think it doesn't, could you say how you interpret the gravitational lensing observations? --Art Carlson 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A similar answer. I personally believe that there may be no need for dark matter, as there are other theories which do not require it (such as Peratt's). Could there be dark matter? Absolutely, there is evidence supporting it, such as gravitational lensing, and galaxy rotational curves.
  • What could gravitational lensing be? I personally think it could be due to gravity (rather than due to the curvature of space); or it could be something that looks like gravitational lensing (eg. arcs are actually arcs of material, not uncommon in plasmas), or it could be due to something else. Sorry I can't be more specific, it's not something I've studied in detail. --Iantresman 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that Peratt concluded that plasma processes can reproduce galactic rotation curves at a time (1986) when estimates of galaxy mass from strong and weak gravitational lensing were tentative or non-existent. (The Twin Quasar was discovered in 1979, and Tyson et al. did "pioneering work" on the matter distribution in galaxies in 1984.) I was about to say some nasty things in this discussion about Peratt not doing his homework and selectively ignoring observations, but then it occured to me that he maybe didn't know about gravitational lensing when he did his work and maybe doesn't still hold to his conclusion. Has Peratt said anything about galaxy formation in the last 15 years? If not, we should perhaps present his work from a more historical perspective. I would have boldly changed the article myself, but I couldn't figure out how to do it properly. Any suggestions? --Art Carlson 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please bare in mind that my knowledge of gravitation lensing is minimal.
  • Ultimately, all theories of the universe have to account for, and be consistent with all observations available. But papers on various subjects do not necessarily do so. For example, I picked a random 1997 paper on "An Analysis of 900 Rotation Curves", and note that they don't mention gravitational lensing, at all. Likewise a random paper on "The Cosmological Significance of Disk Galaxy Rotation Curves".
  • In other words, I don't think that gravitational lensing is necessarily part of the remit, of a paper focusing on galaxy rotational curves. And I am not saying that there are no implications.
  • I don't think that anyone has published any problems with Peratt's galaxy formation simulations.
  • Wikipedia is also not the place to debate the issue. As editors, we are not verifiable, so our opinions on gravitation lensing and Peratt's galaxy rotation theories are inadmissible.
  • Also, we have to be careful about getting the balance between (a) Peratt's material is "out of date" (b) Peratt's material has stood the test of time. --Iantresman 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I note from Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, that he is quite familiar with the refractive index of plasmas, and mentions it in Chapter 7 "Transport of Cosmic Radiation". --Iantresman 11:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocky Kolb criticized Peratt's simulations along with other qualitative descriptions of spirals appearing in randomized initial conditions as pointed out by Sean Carroll. This was an off-the-cuff criticism, but Peratt's simulations do not make numerical predictions that can be compared to existing observational data (unlike the standard density wave analysis offered in, for example, Binney and Tremaine). When people fail to create a testable model and then promote it as a possible explanation, that's the first sign of delving into pseudoscience. No one is going to critique Peratt's model because it offers no predictions. Peratt and Lerner both suffer from out-of-datitude. For example, neither one of them can explain the observations for the accelerating universe either. Neither one can explain the WMAP harmonics. Neither one can explain large-scale structure statistics. Neither one can explain flatness or the end of greatness. And so on. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like unsubstantiated, unverifiable, opinion. --Iantresman 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It is unequivocal fact that Lerner and Peratt have never published works explaining what I outlined. --ScienceApologist 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We may not be aware of any published works on those subjects, but that does not make it an unequivocal fact. You may have heard of the fallacy of negative proof, or Proof of impossibility?
  • Your opinions have no relevance. WMAP harmonics is not mentioned in the Wiki articles on the Big Bang, nor on Galaxy formation and evolution, and it is not necessary for a particular theory to account for all observations on a wider subject. However, if you have reliable source that says it's important, by all means quote it. --Iantresman 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WMAP harmonics are mentioned on the Big Bang and structure formation articles, they are just embedded deeply in the text (in, for example, the Hubble constant and cosmological parameters). I eagerly await your (dis)proof of my assertion that Lerner and Peratt have not published works on those subjects. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See negative proof, can't be done. And this is not the place to debate. If you have a peer review source with some criticism, please feel free to present it. --Iantresman 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See falsification. Provide one counterexample and your job is done. If you have a peer review source that indicates that Lerner and Peratt have so published, please feel free to present it. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as it is your personal opinion is that Peratt and Lerner have not discussed certain issues, my personal opinion is that they are not relevant. Seen we are not reliable sources, nor verifiable, the onus is on you to provide sources supporting your criticism that these issues are important. --Iantresman 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is verifiable whether or not Peratt and Lerner have "published" on certain topics. If their thoughts don't exist someplace that you can find them when you look for them, then they are not "public".
  • Gravitational lensing is one of the most important pieces of evidence we have concerning the mass of galaxies. It certainly is relevant whether plasma cosmology theories of galaxy formation take it into account or not. I'm not saying that a theory has to explain everything at once to be serious and interesting, but it is definitely important to know what it does and doesn't explain.
(I'm working on getting some more verifiable information on electromagnetic theories of galaxy formation.) --Art Carlson 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I may be able to help with obtaining some papers, and you can find some of Peratt's on his Web site here --Iantresman 09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is notable that Peratt does not include any work on cosmology from beyond the early 90s. The latest work available from that page is a review of numerical techniques for modeling astrophysical plasmas in 1998. It is becoming clear that the article should indicate that plasma cosmology is stagnant. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's an unsubstantiated conclusion. The article overview already notes that "Papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals through the 1990s". You and I have no peer reviewed information to indicating what work may, or may not have been done sine them. --Iantresman 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Peratt criticisms

Art, just wanted to say that your recent comments on Peratt's work [32] are a good example of criticism: verifiable and from reliable sources. --Iantresman 10:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lerner on light element abundances

I wanted to look into Lerner's ideas on the origin of cosmic deuterium. If I am using my tools properly, that article has not been cited a single time:

Cited Author=(Lerner) AND Cited Work=(IEEE T PLASMA SCI) AND Cited Year=(2003)
Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI; Timespan=1900-2006
0 references matched the query

Can anyone verify that? --Art Carlson 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked ADSABS for his 1995 AP&SS article on BBN. It is never cited by anybody. His 1989 ITPS paper "Galactic model of element formation" was cited twice by himself and once by Marmet. --ScienceApologist 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Lerner's paper "Galactic model of element formation" (1989) was indeed cited by Prof. Paul Marmet (Ph D. degrees in physics, Director (1967) of the Research Laboratory in Atomic and Molecular Physics, Laval University), also co-authored by radio astronomer, Grote Reber. --Iantresman 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a defective copy of Lerner's paper. It is possible that he has something to say about the problems of gamma and lithium production (in relation to deuterium production). Can somebody check on it? Otherwise I'll do it on Monday. --Art Carlson 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It turns out Lerner does mention gamma ray production, but he doesn't bring it into relation with the previous results (bad scientific practice). I tried to bring this into the article as fairly as I could. This is a lot of work and to do it absolutely right takes a lot of background in the field - more than I have. This is the trouble with writing articles on extreme minority viewpoints, even if there are refereed publications on the topic. If there are no secondary sources, anything an editor does verges on original research, but the only alternative is to not mention it at all. --Art Carlson 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the biggest problem with this article. The tremendously poor quality of the work produced by Lerner and Peratt is evident by the fact that they do not mention the obvious contradictions to their work, and as their work is ignored, neither does anybody else verifiably. Nevertheless, to present their work fairly, we should illustrate how easy it is to refute them off-handedly. But how to do that according to the standards of the encyclopedia? This quandry is probably why other encyclopedia such as Brittanica do not have articles on such ideas: they are simply too far removed from the mainstream to be worth the headache. This is why I think peer-review criticism is so important in order for ideas in science to be considered notable. Note that plasma cosmology suffers from a lack of peer reviewed criticism: no one bothers to refute it or point out problems with it because nearly no one thinks it is developed enough to warrant comment. Since plasma cosmology advocates themselves are pretty ignorant of the current state of the field, as Art Carlson is discovering, it is a re-education process that is worth wasting no one's time. Reader's have nothing to gain from being exposed to such an ill-posed subject. Hopefully the notability guidelines will develop towards continued marginalization of these borderline subjects. --ScienceApologist 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If their work is so easy to refute, then submit a paper to a journal for peer review, where it would have far more value than merely stating your point of view. --Iantresman 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a waste of my time to submit a paper to peer review refuting a bunch of amateurish drivel that everybody who studies the subject academically dismisses out-of-hand. There are enough hare-brained ideas floating around that do get through critical review to spend time on. Refuting plasma cosmology will not happen until it can be shown to be as predictive a model as Lambda-CDM. The scientific community doesn't suffer fools gladly, and doesn't suffer those who even entertain such fools. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why the hell do pigheads like you waste all your valuable time here? Jon 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought about Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks but I'm not sure where I would stop. "Fools" and "pretty ignorant" means people not here, right? Art LaPella 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"radio fog"

If there is a "radio fog" at wavelengths above 100 microns, how is it possible to make high-contrast, high-resolution images in the far infrared? More to the point, how does plasma cosmology explain it? (Compare, for example, these images of Andromeda in the visible and at 175 microns.) --Art Carlson 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it their contention that the "radio fog" is the CMB? --ScienceApologist 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but how can you have fog and sharp images? If I look at a lighthouse through a fog I don't see a bright point of light on a grey background, I see a big fuzz where the grey is a little lighter. If there is enough dust in our cosmic neighborhood to thermalize FIR radiation, then there must be enough dust to blur the FIR images of distant galaxies. (More generally, of course, I want to figure out how the idea of thermalized starlight as CMB can be most easily seen to be wrong.) --Art Carlson 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how they square the fog-mechanism with sharp emission in the CMB range. Objects that have temperatures close to the CMB temperature should indeed be distorted if there was a radio fog. Unless those objects are closer than the cosmic iron whiskers doing the distorting. Anyway, this is all too much meandering through the Black Forest for my tastes. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked out Lerner's 1995 paper and found zero citations.

Cited Author=(Lerner) AND Cited Work=(ASTROPHYS SPACE SCI) AND Cited Year=(1995)
Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI; Timespan=1900-2006
0 references matched the query

A really deafening silence. Is there more we can say about his ideas without going off the deep end of original research?

  • My worry about the fog is not quite right. If you look at the sun through dust (not fog), it still looks sharp, just dim. The question is not the opacity, but the scattering within the medium. Lerner neglects this. We could allude to this, but the problem is too complex that we as editors could come anywhere near to saying this is a fatal problem.
  • I next thought he was maybe comparing his theory to old data. I discovered today that the data he uses, that taken in the early months of COBE, have not been improved on in the 16 years since (not even by WMAP), and will not even be bettered by the next generation of observations (Planck).
  • I was wondering about citing observations of the SZ effect, since that involves a hole in one part of the spectrum, correlated spatially with galaxy clusters. This is very hard for any theory like Lerner's to explain, but it is also a rather subtle effect so I think it lies on the wrong side of the OR frontier.
  • All I can think of that might be considered in any way to prove that Lerner's theory is wrong and/or the Big Bang is right is the detailed fluctuation spectrum. Lerner concludes: "Thus the absorptive model does not produce anisotropies that contradict the COBE or other CBR observations." This, of course, if far short of predicting them, as the BB model does with only a few free parameters (that take on plausible values). Do we need to, are we allowed to emphasize this difference more strongly?

--Art Carlson 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wow."

I just decided to pop in and see how this article is doing, and I notice the top of the talk page where it says that E. Lerner has been banned from editing the article. Wow, good game to you wikipedians! This is further proof of every criticism I have ever made about Wikipedia and the systems in place to 'peer review' etc etc. I just don't get it though, is it only me that thinks it is a huge Red Flag to BAN from an article someone who can directly contribute first hand knowledge on the subject? Now that one of the pioneers in the field has been prevented from making contribution, we can watch the article fall back under control of the 'naysayers' and BB proponents. I apologize for not helping to defend your position and this article, Mr. Lerner, I did not realize what was happening as I am no longer a frequent visitor, due very much to the exact types of practices that you have witnessed and have been put through. Honestly you people expect to understand plasma cosmology yet you ignore nearly everything we say (you can't help it your mind is in a different paradigm, and some minds are simply unwilling, perhaps unable, to switch) and many of you don't even appear to be attempting your own research into the field. Then you ban from article editing those who DO know what is going on. I am not banned from the article but you can see by my history I had to leave it long ago because of the same types of attacks. Anyhow, I just wanted to add my comment about how disgusting it is to see that Mr. Lerner has been banned from the article. --Ionized

  • Remarkably, he was banned for (a) Being Eric Lerner [33] (b) for having impure thoughts (an "advocate of the plasma cosmology theory") (c) promotion of a "plasma focus device" (d) Raising money for his company (e) Being a director of a company.
  • That Eric is an award-winning science writer with over 600 articles under his belt, and an expert in the subject, seems to have been of no consequence. So watch out! --Iantresman 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
heh... thanks for the additional voice, I notice you where one of the 'probated' while the BB proponent just gets off with a warning, lol to that. Ah yes the plasma focus device, I remember giving a physics seminar on the device and how it relates to quasar models (and can be used to relate to Arp's observations of quasars.) We honestly do need to further fund and understand these plasma models, so you can count me in on promotion of the plasma focus device since it is directly relevant to understanding of certain astrophysical processes. -Ionized 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume that Eric Lerner was banned for his editing behavior rather than his knowledge (which, of course, he can still offer on the talk pages). I am very disappointed that the ArbComm did not make their reasons for a ban clear. You are welcome, Ionized, to promote any device or theory you like, but please remember that Wikipedia articles are not the place to do it. --Art Carlson 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I had asked ArbCom in a couple of places to do just this, (a) Give the reasons for the bans (b) Provide examples of the evidence. --Iantresman 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I would prefer to think that his editing behavior is what earned the ban, but that is just surface data, an excuse, because in my eyes it is the BB proponents that have over stepped their editing ethics while on non standard pages. Art I appreciate your comment about promoting theories just not on Wikipedia. Now if we can just get all the adherents of standard cosmology to also stop promotion of their theories, maybe you could just go over to the BB page and remind everyone there of the same thing, it would help matters a bit. And I don't want to get back into wars over what is pov or npov etc, if everyone just reads the entire talk archives of this page you will all see that these types of wars have been going on for many years here, and indeed for thousands of years historically. It is one of the reasons I dropped out of the wiki race, and honestly when I found that Mr. Lerner had come here and began edits I felt that something like this would happen all over again, as it had in the past to myself and others. -Ionized 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WMAP data

  • You noted that "Although neither Lerner nor Peratt has published on this topic since the WMAP data became available, there is no reason to expect that the plasma model could explain the detailed angular power spectrum of anisotropies."
  • I'm just wondering why there is no reason for the expectation? --Iantresman 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Lerner was proud, and rightly so, that he was able to construct an absorbtion theory that reproduced a blackbody spectrum, and that the overall level of fluctuations in his model was not obviously higher than that observed by COBE. There's just not a lot of room left to tweek the model. (You could, of course, say that the distribution and properties of the filaments just happen to be those which match the observations.) The Big Bang model is much more tightly constrained. Just look at the data and match to the theory (copied from Cosmic microwave background experiments):
The power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropy in terms of the angular scale (or multipole moment). The data shown come from the WMAP (2006), Acbar (2004) Boomerang (2005), CBI (2004) and VSA (2004) instruments. Also shown is a theoretical model (solid line).
I know I am appealing to common sense and at least a rudimentary understanding of physics here. I don't have a verifiable source for my statement and that troubles me. On the other hand, I have a bad feeling about reporting a publication, even though it's peer-reviewed, which has had no response in the literature, and letting it stand as though it must be true. An alternative would be to leave it out altogether as a not notable scientific hypothesis, but if we started doing that, there would soon be nothing left. I do think an article on Plasma Cosmology has its place in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's my quandary. Do you think we should say something else, or say the same thing differently? --Art Carlson 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How about something along the lines that "Although neither Lerner nor Peratt has published on this topic since the WMAP data became available, they have not mentioned the angular power spectrum of anisotropies."
  • I think it is presumptuous to assume that their models either can't describe them, or can't explain them.
  • Giving a contrary example, would it be fair to write in the article on Standard cosmology, (trite example warning), that "there is no reason to expect that the Standard model could explain redshift quantization..." --Iantresman 10:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still working on the section. Maybe I'll think of a formulation that makes both of us happy (and Joshua, too). Right now I'm worried about the alignment of the low-order multipoles. Not surprisingly, this paragraph was added by Eric Lerner (here). It is certainly not included in the paper cited in the current version. I am removing it until a verifiable source can be found. All right, I'll copy it here, just so it doesn't get lost:
Additionally, certain analyses of the CMB indicate that the quadrupole moment is unexpectedly low and that the octupole moment is unexpectedly planar. Furthermore, there are various unexpectedly good alignments of the planes of the quadrupole and octupole moments with each other and with the ecliptic, with the direction of the cosmological dipole, with the equinoxes, and with the supergalactic plane.[2] Eric Lerner has suggested that this corresponds to a model where the Local Supercluster filament would shield us from more distant filament CMB radiation,[3] although he has not offered a detailed model predicting this phenomenon. Since the low-l multipoles are the ones with the most systematic errors, some researchers have argued that these effects disappear when the removal of the foreground from the CMB is carefully accounted for.[4] (See Cosmic microwave background radiation#Low multipoles.)
--Art Carlson 10:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Art you wrote "There's just not a lot of room left to tweak the model. (You could, of course, say that the distribution and properties of the filaments just happen to be those which match the observations.) The Big Bang model is much more tightly constrained. Just look at the data and match to the theory." In my mind, the plasma model has fewer free variables due to the inherent method of analysis from empirical observables. In contrast, the BB model is indeed less tightly constrained, just as you say look at the data and match to the theory, tweak it. -Ionized 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems a shame to removed the section "Additionally, certain analyses..." for the lack of a reference. It contains several references (more than most articles); if you can be specific about which sentence is lacking a reference, I can see whether I can find one. --Iantresman 12:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

SZ effect

I've got some problems with this paragraph, too. It was added by a certain editor who recently had a run-in with the "law", apparently as original research, since he didn't cite any verifiable source. As you may have noticed, I am not as a matter of principle against including unpublished arguments, but they should be darn good ones. In this case, the authors of the study cited draw no conclusion about the origin of the CMB. In fact they point out that "The SZE has already been detected in a large number of high-redshift clusters using interferometric techniques of higher resolution than the WMAP data .... Comparison of radio interferometry and X-ray data for the same clusters show that SZE-derived and X-ray derived masses and gas fractions are in agreement...." If the plasma theory were true, you would expect the see more effect for low-z clusters and less effect for high-z clusters. The data, "which could still be suffering from systematic, yet hitherto unknown, biases", indicate the opposite, if they indicate anything. Between being unverifiable and being illogical, I think I have to remove this. --Art Carlson 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerrit Verschuur

I wasn't able to google any connection between Gerrit Verschuur and plasma cosmology that didn't lead back to Wikipedia. Does he really deserve to be listed under Plasma cosmology#Figures in plasma cosmology? --Art Carlson 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's co-authored papers with Peratt,[34], and others with evidence of Alfvén's Critical ionization velocity,[35], and a number of his papers are referenced by Peratt on his Web site,[36]. And this paper [37] appeared in the Proceedings Second IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology (10-12 May 1993). --Iantresman 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of these rise to the level of plasma cosmology advocate. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Guilt by association? If he's never called his work "plasma cosmology", and he isn't important enough to be mentioned in the text of the article, and even the papers cited have only obliquely to do with cosmology in the strict sense, then I don't see any reason to put him on a par with the other four, who have unquestionably "helped ... to develop this field". Even his Wiki biography doesn't mention cosmology, much less plasma cosmology. I'll just go ahead and boldly remove his name from the list. --Art Carlson 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you two serious? Rather than removing authors you have never heard of, why don't you go read them? -Ionized 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. Art, your point is not entirely invalid however, this list has narrowed a lot since first added and perhaps GV is the last remnant from previous removals based upon a similar line of reasoning. However the point still stands that his work is influential in plasma cosmology. p.s.s. and there is no way that Google contains all information on earth, yet. That is what prompted my initial hostile response, of course you can't google connections between GV and plasma cosmology, you have to read his papers and the journals and look at the contributions and see the big picture. -Ionized 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Critical ionization velocity is a feature of "plasma universe", a superset of "plasma cosmology", and Verschuur's paper with Peratt, is enough to nail it.
  • I think that the section on "Figures in plasma cosmology" could be less wordy. I think we just need to say: "Other figures associated with plasma cosmology (or the plasma universe) include... " and then just give a list of names.
  • Other names to include are: Dr Timothy Eastman (NASA [38]),[39][40], James van Allen,[41], Grote Reber, Per Carlqvist and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, and the lab chief of NASA's Planetary Magnetospheres Laboratory, Dr Steven A. Curtis, who offers an online Powerpoint presentation on the Plasma Universe, see link to "Plasma in the Universe: Educational Outreach Tool"[42] --Iantresman 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CIV is not a feature of plasma cosmology proposals put forward. It is a feature of plasmas that Alfven predicted.
  • Ian should learn to distinguish between research into astrophysical plasmas (as the Curtis powerpoint is discussing) and plasma cosmology.
--ScienceApologist 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish you would ask first and cooperate, rather than embark on such disruptive editing.
  • CIV is indeed a feature of plasmas that Alfvén predicted; that does not make it mutually exclusive with Plasma Cosmology. Alfvén himself wrote:
"Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. The basic aspects of cosmological importance are: (1) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere; (2) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma; (3) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and (4) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic plasma evolves. A review is presented of a number of the outstanding questions of cosmology in the plasma universe." , in "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) (my emphasis)
  • I am so pleased that you consider the contents of the presentation [43] to be "standard research into astrophysical plasmas", and I look forward to adding information from the presentation, into some mainstream articles, such:
  • Page 51: "Studying the Large-Scale Structure of Plasmas": Alfvén thought that currents generated within plasmas should give the universe a cellular and filamentary structure.
  • Page 52: "Doubleness in Large-Scale Structure Development": The signature of electromagnetic forces at work is "doubleness". Wherever there are multiple strands of electric currents, they prefer to interact in pairs.
  • Page 53: "Unveiling: ‘Pinching’ Plasmas in Cosmic Evolution": Pinching leads to the generation of synchrotron radiation so ubiquitous in radio galaxies and quasars.
  • Page 54: "Unveiling: Theoretical Simulation of Large-Scale Structure of Plasmas": the energy to produce a galaxy is delivered via a current-conducting plasma filament that may stretch for hundreds or thousands of gigaparsecs
  • Page 57 "The Plasma Universe: A New Cosmology?": As yet, those who study plasmas offer no proposal about the universe's origin and age. That issue, as well as the size of the universe, lies beyond their horizons of experimentation and simulation. Still, at the beginning of the twenty first century, electrical engineers are marshaling a growing body of evidence that points to the necessity of integrating plasmas into the core of cosmological thinking." (The Plasma Universe)
I trust you'll revert your edit at Critical ionization velocity --Iantresman 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I revert my edit at critical ionization velocity? What Alfven thought about the universe is relevant to Alfven, not to articles describing the mainstream and current understanding of science. If you disrupt science articles, you will be banned per the standing of your probation. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist wrote "CIV is not a feature of plasma cosmology proposals put forward. It is a feature of plasmas that Alfven predicted. Ian should learn to distinguish between research into astrophysical plasmas and plasma cosmology." I must reiterate one of the points that Iantresman illustrated just above: Research into astrophysical plasma is absolutely critical to plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is inherently based upon astrophysical plasma research, terrestrial plasma research, studies of all scales of environment. Processes like CIV are integrated deeply into the understanding of other process within plasma cosmology. What exactly are you arguing here SA? And threatening another ban war? Why should Ian get banned for touching a 'mainstream' article, yet you wont get banned, or even probation, for continuously disrupting non standard articles? -Ionized 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: Why Ian or ScienceApologist should or shouldn't be banned has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and I hope we don't have to re-debate such an authoritative decision. Ian said "I look forward to adding ... into mainstream articles" and "I trust you'll revert your edit at...", which I interpret as requests for a consensus not "touching a 'mainstream' article". Art LaPella 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist gave his personal view that Critical ionization velocity has nothing to do with Plasma cosmology. I provided a verifiable peer reviewed source,[44] demonstrating otherwise. ScienceApologist restated his opinion again, disputing a peer reviewed source. Which information is accurate? ScienceApologist (unverifiable), or a verifiable reliable source written by a Nobel prize winner?
  • ScienceApologist gave his personal view that the presentation by Dr Steven A. Curtis [45] was standard research into astrophysical plasmas, in which case, he should have no problems with any of its content being included in a mainstream article. Alternative, it is how I described it, as provided by the verifiable extracts. --Iantresman 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's some ignorant false dichotomy you've set up for yourself, Ian. --ScienceApologist 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist,
  • You said "CIV is not a feature of plasma cosmology".
  • Alfvén said ".. of cosmological importance are .. (4) .. critical velocity "
And then
  • You said "distinguish .. astrophysical plasmas (as the Curtis powerpoint is discussing) and Plasma Cosmology"
  • Curtis wrote in his Powerpoint presentation of these Plasma Cosmology characteristics: (a) multiple strands of electric currents (b) ‘Pinching’ Plasmas in Cosmic Evolution (c) current-conducting plasma filament that may stretch for hundreds or thousands of gigaparsecs (d) "The Plasma Universe: A New Cosmology?":
I'd be interested to hear how we can reconcile your statements with the verifiable sources? --Iantresman 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Aw, come on. Why can't it be a mistaken false dichotomy or a superficial, misleading false dichotomy? What does a high-powered word like ignorant have to do with it? Even if Ian is deliberately misleading us, and I didn't say he is, then isn't there a more direct way to call him to account for what he is actually doing? Art LaPella 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The superficial nature of the false dichotomy is not what worries me. As I see it, what Ian is threatening to do is either: a)insert non-consensus wording into mainstream science pages or b)assume article-ownership over plasma cosmology by claiming that whenever Alfven is talking about cosmological implications of plasmas he must necessarily be talking about "plasma cosmology". Either way, I find such advocacy ignorant in the sense of its definition which is to say Ian's advocacy is either 1.Lacking education or knowledge. or 2. Unaware or uninformed. There is another option I considered which is that Ian actually knows what he is doing, in which case he's being duplicitous. I thought "ignorant" would be more civil. In any case, this kind of uncompromising and selfish promotion of Ian's point-of-view is tiring. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been over a year and we're all tired. I think "1. Lacking education or knowledge. or 2. Unaware or uninformed" is more civil than the fighting word "ignorant". Even the word "duplicitous", if you think that is justified which you evidently don't really, isn't as high-charged as "ignorant". Art LaPella 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you say so. I would much rather be called "ignorant" than "duplicitous" any day, but maybe that's just me. After all, calling someone duplicitous rejects any assumption of good faith. If the person is ignorant, they may simply be unknowingly acting in the way they believe is best. It is in this sense that I thought it more civil. I have often thought about developing an examination that would characterize the relative ignorance of people with respect to physics and astronomy. A kind of standardized test for Wikipedia science-article editorship. That way, when people are arguing over content matters we'd be able to decide whether or not they really knew what they were talking about. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia .. Negative personal comments." ie. Criticize the edit, sources, content. E.g. That argument appears to be a false dichotomy because.. --Iantresman 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I too would rather be called ignorant than duplicitous, but I was talking about subjective impressions, not objective content. "Ignorant", like its blunter cousins "stupid" and "idiotic", is better hinted at than stated directly, especially on a scientific page where readers will understand it either way. "Duplicitous" is a useful weasel word for "liar", which is of course a direct insult. And as Ian pointed out, I'm not sure why his knowledge is the issue at all. His score on a science test would presumably be as high as many of us who make useful contributions. Art LaPella 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this marathon stems from Ian and SA's original inability to mutually define what "plasma cosmology" is. That would be a good (necessary) starting point if we ever want to end this "tiring" back-and-forth, add-and-delete, ban-and-be-banned, etc, dialog. If you can't decide on the definition, then the rest is pointless and a waste of time. ABlake 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have consistently maintained that "plasma cosmology" is the nonstandard cosmological proposals that involve invoking "plasma explanations" for phenomena explained otherwise in Big Bang cosmology. In this sense, much of what Alfven discusses in his article is not "plasma cosmology", though some of it undoubtably is. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that verifiable reliable sources help us define Plasma Cosmology. In this particular case, Aflvén says that CIV is of "cosmological importance" in his paper discussing the cosmology of the Plasma Universe (ie. Plasma Cosmology). Curtis specifically mentions the "Plasma Universe: A New Cosmology", and writes about several features of plasma, that are found only in Plasma Cosmology. --Iantresman 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah perhaps the issue is that you want the article to be confined to things that are exclusive to the cosmic scale, yet the very basis of plasma cosmology is an inclusion of many more scales. Anyhow, SA wrote "...by claiming that whenever Alfven is talking about cosmological implications of plasmas he must necessarily be talking about "plasma cosmology"." That is indeed exactly what Alfven was doing. When he speculated on cosmological implications of any plasma theory, he is acting within plasma cosmology. A plasma cosmologist acting within his framework never has to say specifically "now I am attempting to theorize about plasma cosmology." Alfven simply did what he did. Since I have one of his books here, 'Cosmic Plasma', let me open it up and see what he stated in the introduction. Ah yes, it looks like within a few paragraphs he called what he was doing 'cosmic plasma physics'. -Ionized 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Cosmic plasma physics" is done all the time in mainstream cosmology. "Plasma cosmology" is outside the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
On what do you base your definition? ABlake 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I base my definition on the papers by Peratt and Lerner which actually use the term "plasma cosmology". --ScienceApologist 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology Definition

Art, would you please give us your impression of a working definition of "Plasma Cosmology"? Ian, you're welcome to give yours also since your last post on the subject wasn't clear. SA has already given his clear definition, although I would still like a better explanation since it seems to conflict with the second line of the article. Either his definition needs to be altered, or the second line needs tweaking. I would still like a source for SA's definition other than his own interpretation. ABlake 03:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant Art Carlson, although his user page says he's busy. In either case, Art C. has direct plasma-related experience in his career and I'm a finance guy. Art LaPella 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Any definition of Plasma Cosmology must be based on verifiable reliable sources. Hannnes Alfvné's paper "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) notes (edited for format):

"The basic aspects of cosmological importance are:
  • (1) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere;
  • (2) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma;
  • (3) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and
  • (4) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic plasma evolves." (Full paper here) (1990)
Note that when Peratt uses the term, he is referring to the non-standard parts of Alfven's proposals. That is the sense of plasma cosmology --ScienceApologist 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of Alfven's points that Ian outlines are qualitatively interesting, but because they are qualitative they do not necessarily contradict standard cosmology. What Peratt and Lerner propose does contradict standard cosmology. We would not need an article if Alfven's proposals were what "plasma cosmology" was about, but since his disciples have gone over the deep end with their insistance on no big bang, we need an article that talks about their pathological fury towards the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though you are defining PC only with reference to the BB. You appear to be mixing the definition of a non-standard cosmology, in with the definition of PC. While PC is a non-standard cosmology, it is not defined simply by this alone. The Big Bang isn't defined as "The cosmology that explains things using gravity instead of plasma." and by the same reasoning PC should not be defined as "the nonstandard cosmological proposals that involve invoking "plasma explanations" for phenomena explained otherwise in Big Bang cosmology." Just because something does not contradict standard cosmology, does not mean it is not part of PC. You appear to be defining PC by the parts of it that contradict BB, yet it is much broader than this. -Ionized 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are looking at a selection effect: Perhaps Peratt wrote more about and directly named the parts of PC that contradict standard cosmology because it is those parts that people least understand and that need clarification over the more generally accepted parts of the basis of PC. Also remember that these people had to protect their careers, Alfven all but admits directly that his original ideas allowed for expansion simply to get them published. If they indeed only called certain parts of what they where doing by the name 'plasma cosmology', perhaps it was to ease people in to the ideas gently. -Ionized 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Do I need to point out how ironic your pathological fury comment is? -Ionized 15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
In the same way "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution", nothing in cosmology makes sense except in light of the Big Bang. As such, plasma cosmology is necessarily going to have to come to terms with the Big Bang. The Big Bang uses plasma quite a bit in its framework explanations of the early universe. That does not make these aspects of the Big Bang "plasma cosmology". I don't care what the motivation for Peratt and Lerner were, the fact of the matter is those handful of researchers who continue to maintain some non-standard cosmological fantasy of plasma cosmology do so in direct repudiation of the mainstream. That's undeniable. Where these people overlap with the mainstream is not part of their research schema -- that's part of the mainstream. This article is on the fringe associations of certain pathologically skeptical researchers who have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they are not well-considered in the field (namely Peratt and Lerner). It has nothing to do with the parts of Alfven's considerations which are mainstream. --ScienceApologist 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"nothing in cosmology makes sense except in light of the Big Bang." So cosmology did not exist until the 1920s? -Ionized 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Not precisely, no. --ScienceApologist 16:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that reasoning to be highly illogical, unscientific, and ignorant. -Ionized 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Not precisely, no." Is not exactly "reasoning" in the normal sense.
Perhaps you should complete your physics bachelor's degree before you continue in this kind of argumentation.
--ScienceApologist 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, continue paying large sums of money to get a piece of paper saying how Ive been brainwashed? No thanks, nice attempt to discredit though. My comment was in reference to the reasoning that makes you think that cosmology is defined only in reference to the Big Bang, not in reference to your single sentence "Not precisely, no." -Ionized 16:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, someone has a chip on his shoulder? Maybe you should have studied a little harder for your last set of exams? In any case, I think it is pretty clear that because those people who get paid to research cosmology all assume the Big Bang, it's pretty clear that cosmology is basically a framework science right now (in the same way most of science is framework -- according to Kuhn). --ScienceApologist 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I was just about to add that the Big Bang is just A cosmology, it is not the definition of cosmology. And do you have a copy of my transcript or something? Do you know my personal reasons and history? No, so why don't you stop this bannable behavior. -Ionized 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know your personal reasons, it's true. But I find it very peculiar that someone who did not finish a bachelor's degree would be tossing-about the adjective "ignorant" with regards to these subjects. --ScienceApologist 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. To be nice, I will refrain from listing the peculiarities I have about you. -Ionized 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that the conversation has devolved into personal attack, let's take a step back. I would like to get everyones opinion on the proposed idea that Cosmology is only defined with reference to the Big Bang theory. -Ionized 17:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Plasma Cosmology is not defined by what Peratt decides to arbitrarily include or exclude in one particular article.
  • The Big Bang is indeed recognised as a framework (or paradigm)[46]. As Alfvén wrote, Plasma Universe is also a new paradigm.[47] I have no problem with Plasma Cosmology being defined within the Big Bang framework, as long as there are verifiable sources that do so. --Iantresman 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that SA is going beyond just attempting to define Plasma Cosmology, and is indeed attempting to define the discipline of cosmology itself as relying on the BB theory. It seems as if the argument is that outside of the framework of the Big Bang, cosmology doesn't exist. It is interesting that frameworks are acknowledged yet validity is exclusively attributed to only one framework. -Ionized 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article on physical cosmology, you'll understand where I'm coming from. --ScienceApologist 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If you think I don't understand where you are coming from, you are mistaken. I would not speak my voice on a subject in which I have not invested vast amounts of time and thought. Is it not obvious by looking at my page contributions? Do you see me voicing my opinion anywhere else? I am simply trying to point out the obvious: you can't define all of Cosmology as being tied to one paradigm. It is the study of the universe as a whole, and the frame of mind used to go about the discipline is what is at issue here. All paradigms must be investigated, and ignorance of any one over the other will tend to bring about an incomplete analysis. A union of the experimental and theoretical methods is at the base of plasma cosmology, with utmost importance placed on empirical observables and scale invariants. It is a different approach, reconciliation is necessary between the two paradigms I agree, but censorship and attempts at discredit are not the way to proceed. -Ionized 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
After reading over the physical cosmology page again, I'm reminded of many fundamental differences between the two approaches. Ill give a major example because I believe that this example is one that causes many problems between the schools. One of the main differences between the two paradigms is the idea of being able to have knowledge of a 'first cause' to the universe. In PC, our methods simply leave that question unanswered, there is no way to determine a first cause using the empirical methods that humans have available at present, and because of this along with other reasons, it is generally assumed that the universe is for all practical purposes infinite in age as a whole. This of course, does not rule out the possibility of a first cause, it simply states that we are not privileged to ever know it if one existed. We start with knowledge of the present and extrapolate forwards and backwards, more concerned with the structure and processes as a whole than with figuring out how it all began or how it will all end. This basic premise pervades the rest of the thought processes in plasma cosmology, leading to a view of the universe that is quite dynamic with energy flow and storage on the large scale that for practical purposes can be considered infinite. Anyhow, just wanted to give an example of one of the many differences between the two paradigms. -Ionized 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been gone all of two days, and I come back to find the a Frankenstein discussion has grown, apparently out of the seed of my nearly trivial edit of removing Gerrit Verschuur. I don't care about all the personal attacks and philosophizing. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. If somebody could tell me exactly how they propose to improve this article, I would be happy to join in the discussion. --Art Carlson 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Art. I appreciate your focus, as it helps to fill up articles vs. talk pages. That's my focus also. If you would, I was hoping you could give your opinion on the definition and limits of Plasma Cosmology. That seemed to me to be the root cause of this arguing, although I can't rule out the possibility that some like to argue for the sake of arguing or to boost/protect their ego, in which case my efforts will only make it worse. ABlake 10:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I got a bit defensive and my ego responded, I didn't like the personal attack on my credentials. Please lead the discussion where you think it needs to go, and I will try to only give input where it is necessary. -Ionized 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Also, I too would like to focus on improving the article. I am one of its original editors and shapers but at this point I have decided it is safer to take the role of bystander, giving input here instead of directly in the article. While the discussions here can sometimes seem a bit off topic and irrelevant, there is a common theme and an attempt at coherence underneath it all. -Ionized 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we do ok already at describing plasma cosmology, but we don't really define it, which might be a problem. I have never seen a manifesto giving a reasonable definition of PC. But having hung out around the PC "scene" here at Wikpedia, I have formed an (unverifiable) impression.
  • Since an overwhelming concensus exists for one cosmological framework, the Big Bang, I don't think an encyclopedia has any choice but to describe an alternative cosmology in terms of the Big Bang. (Without, of course, taking sides on the question of truth.)
  • I think this is how PC advocates see themselves, as well. Although it can't logically be ruled out, it is hard to imagine Lerner or Peratt coming and saying, "Well, maybe the Big Bang really did happen. And I think the PC idea of the formation of large scale structure (or whatever) fits really well into that framework and makes it better by solving the following problems."
  • If PC denies the Big Bang, then it follows they need an explanation, presumably based on plasma physics, for these phenomena (in order of importance/difficulty): Hubble's Law, the CMB, and "primordial" nucleosythesis. The advocates apparently agree and address these points. (What they haven't addressed is how an eternal universe can evolve. This is a big logical problem.)
  • PC advocates also claim to extrapolate results from laboratory experiments to cosmic scale. I haven't actually caught them in the act of doing this, so it should not be part of a definition.
  • It may also be important to point out that PC advocates have a very particular type of plasma in mind. Although I wouldn't say it is uncommon, filamentation of plasmas is not universal - except within PC. There are lots of circumstances in which current filaments get broader by diffusion, or plasmas full of current that are not organized in any identifiable filaments. Although it seems strange to an outsider with knowledge of plasma physics, the ubiquitous (in PC, at least) Birkeland currents may have a place in a definition. (The importance of double layers and CIV is much less clear.)
That's not the "clear definition" you were hoping for, but it might contain one or another useful thought. --Art Carlson 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me add a couple points:
  • As far as I can tell, it's not only the Big Bang that PC opposes, but any cosmology with expanding space. I think it would be natural to solve a few problems by embedding PC in a continuous creation universe, but it looks like Peratt and Lerner haven't even thought about the possibility.
Hi, just wanted to give a brief answer to this, will try to get to the other points eventually. I don't know what Lerner or Peratt think about this issue, but I have thought about it in the past, and to me PC is not strictly a continuous creation cosmology, in the same sense of Steady State or the Narlikar/Arp Machian analysis where it is thought that indeed energy/matter is being continuously created and ejected from AGN. From what I can tell, in PC the total energy content of the universe is assumed constant, and the proposed ejection of quasars from AGN is just one stage of energy/mass transfer from other parts of the universe, not energy/mass creation as proposed by Arp. But again this is a fine line, there are a lot of definitions involved. At this point though I would think that PC should not be included in any continuous creation model, but perhaps a continuous 'transfer' model, unless of course that is what is meant by creation, again some semantics involved as usual. That is where my views differed from Arp's, I found his observational research to be of utmost importance, but did not agree with a lot of his groups theoretical analysis of the collected data on AGN ejection. Obviously all of this analysis is incomplete, maybe in a few more hundred years we will have better data. -Ionized 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An astrophysical phenomenon that involves plasma physics generally belongs in plasma astrophysics, not here. PC Galaxy formation is a borderline case that I would leave here. If somebody has a stellar formation model involving Birkeland currents (as I am afraid they do), is that a case of small-scale PC, or of non-standard plasma astrophysics? I'm just not sure.
  • On the other hand, there are some effects that don't involve plasma physics in any meaningful sense, that are rightfully in this article. I'm thinking of the cosmic-ray theory of deuterium formation. It's only fair to let them try to plug up the holes in their theory the best way can.
--Art Carlson 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Art, you have some good points. Briefly:
  • I suppose it is how an encyclopedia is defined that will decide how its content is handled, I have a few thoughts on this but will keep them to myself, I can state however that since the beginning of this article it has been fought against as being 'non-encyclopedic.'
  • Can't speak for all advocates but I can verify ScienceApologist's statement that I have personally repudiated the Big Bang, but only after years of analysis and historical research, finding gaping holes from which to build a new foundation (ie Redshift and Hubble's empirical version of the Hubble law, as opposed to it's theoretical version espoused by his colleagues and the mainstream.)
  • Agreed that PC needs to eventually find explanations for phenomena. However I understand that it is in its infancy (even though its basis is over 100 years old,) and very much repressed. It will take more time because of fewer researchers, censorship, etc. I too find a slight paradox in using the word 'evolve' for something that is eternal, yet paradox exists only in misunderstanding, hence I must simply accept the fragile state and vulnerability of an open mind, and attempt to resolve this over time.
  • Indeed extrapolation using scale invariants is used, it is a basic premise though so finding concrete mathematical examples of it's use will take some re-researching, though one example is scaling up aspects of the plasma focus device to compare to quasar phenomena (this, if I remember right, was demonstrated in Lerner's popular book and I think in a paper he wrote, but my bib file database is no longer in existence so this is from memory, though verifiable and probably referenced in the article a few years ago.)
  • Nothing brief to say about the exact 'type' of plasma that PC refers to, in my mind Alfven and other advocates only talked specific type when giving specific examples, it is news to me if PC deals with only one type of plasma as a whole. Guess we need to expand on that. (edit: after re-reading your last point, in my mind broadening by diffusion and disorganized currents are not excluded from PC, as they are observed all over the universe hence it would be foolish to not consider those processes. But I see your point, it seems as if the big focus has been on Birkeland currents in the past, maybe cause they have a catchy name :) -Ionized 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering the recent lack of discussion, and the unfocussed, personal nature of the discussion before, I conclude that we don't really have a content problem. I think we shouldn't put a neat definition of PC into the article because there is no such neat definition, and the reader gets the picture already from the descriptive information we now provide. If we had a free evening and a pitcher of beer, I sure we would enjoy picking apart my points and yours, Ionized, but I see nothing at all in your comments that would lead me to suspect that we cannot constructively cooperate to produce a good encyclopedia article. --Art Carlson 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a good encyclopedia article must begin with a neat definition, and if something is essentially undefinable, then it might not worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist said that he bases his definition on the papers papers "by Peratt and Lerner which actually use the term 'plasma cosmology'". If that is the case, would everyone else be willing to accept a definition by Lerner or Peratt, since they are "plasma cosmologists"? Perhaps the definition has changed over time? I think the unfocused, personal nature of the discussion before was caused by just this lack of a definition. However, a pitcher of beer has been known to resolve bigger problems than this in the past. ABlake 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never seen any mention of sources on which ScienceApologist has based any definition of "Plasma Cosmology".
  • I think Alfvén's paper, "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition" (1990) by Hannes Alfvén provides sufficient background information, from which I think the current article definition is OK. --Iantresman 17:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that constructive cooperation is the way to go, whether or not beer is included :) Indeed PC has no perfect definition, however this does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion, it is simply an indication of its stage in development. It is more difficult to define because of it's newer paradigmatic principles and the early stage of it's existence, it's definition indeed is changing in time. It is based on multiple scales, and in a sense, plasma astrophysics and terrestrial plasma physics can become subsets of the overarching principles of PC. It is fine to consider those things on their own however, for instance surely not many would agree that in the plasma astrophysics article we should mention that it is a subset of PC, but referenced from inside PC it takes on that role, just as it takes on the role of being part of BB when used to help model parts of that paradigm. What I'm getting at is, well many thing's, but what triggered this line of thought is the whole discussion on definition and specifically Art's comment about something belonging to small scale PC or non-standard plasma astrophysics. In my mind the phenomena stands on it's own, and is simply defined by us as being in one or another category somewhat arbitrarily at times, the definition does not change it's base function. It is understood that something can be classified as being part of standard plasma astrophysics, because this does not make the phenomena inaccessible to the larger cosmological framework. I am not saying that we should not attempt to define things, don't get me wrong here. I do see validity in defining PC as being separate from the BB, but only in a non-disclaiming fashion. Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole, and when we take it apart, we must remember to put it back together again. I'll stop writing now because I tend to ramble and include multiple points where I meant to only include one, heh. -Ionized 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
On a side-note, after thinking about how you are already able to categorize phenomena between 'standard plasma astrophysics' and 'non-standard plasma astrophysics', I am reminded of an encounter, something that happened several years ago while I was at university. I had approached a certain mainstream astrophysicist, who happens be one of the editors of Astronomy Picture of the Day, looking to get approval for an independent research proposal in which I would be investigating what I then called 'plasma astrophysics'. Imagine the shocked look on this mainstream astrophysicists face when I used the term 'plasma astrophysics'. Apparently at the time, this was in 2000 or 2001 I believe, the term simply did not exist, or at least it was completely unknown to said astrophysicist. I was told something along the lines of 'what are you talking about, that is absurd', and my proposal was summarily turned down. Shocked, I attempted to explain the importance of astrophysical plasma, even to the standard community, but alas it was of no use, because 'gravity is all that matters at that scale'. I find it very humorous that in the 6 years since, the term has not only gained valid meaning within the mainstream community, but has been relegated to only dealing with 'standard' astrophysical material. Anyhow, I'm not sure what my point is in relaying this information, but it does reinforce my earlier statements about plasma astrophysics not necessarily being tied to one paradigm. It also shows how the standard paradigm continues to evolve and assimilate as well. I am beginning to better understand the need to classify between standard and non-standard though, however I am still opposed to the idea of treating 'standard' as ultimate truth. So, when I find time soon I think I will read the whole PC article and maybe come in here and give some ideas for change, of course before I make any edits. In fact I would prefer to make no edits and just give suggestions for others. Also, thanks for not being too harsh when I go a bit off-topic, as coming here again has re-awakened a part of me that has been dormant for a few years, and it is quite refreshing to be able to talk about some of this stuff. -Ionized 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

  1. ^ Plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences". and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". [1]
  2. ^ A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriga and A. Hamilton, "The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP", Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 063516. D. J. Schwarz, G. D. Starkman, D. Huterer and C. J. Copi, "Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 221301.
  3. ^ E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81
  4. ^ A. Slosar and U. Seljak, "Assessing the effects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP", Phys. Rev. D70, 083002 (2004). astro-ph/0404567.

Intergalactic magnetic field

Removed from article:

Additionally gravity is important at large scales, magnetic forces are important in plasma since magnetic forces, like gravity, cannot be shielded. For example, in the Local Supercluster of galaxies, the magnetic field is 0.3 microgauss over a volume 10 Mpc in radius centered on the Milky Way.[1]

As I've said before, this paragraph is extremely problematic. Here's the issue: Kronberg is on the high-end of magnetic field measurements for intergalactic space. A quote from a popular-level article:

"I'm surprised, very surprised," says Russell M. Kulsrud of Princeton University, adding that he harbors some doubts that the strengths "are quite as high as [Kronberg] said." But even if the field strengths are a bit smaller, he adds, "they are still . . . very difficult to explain."

[48]

This is an open question and to propose it as a bald fact like this is extremely problematic. Therefore I have removed this per reliable source and verifiability concerns. --ScienceApologist 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have minor issue with this, because instead of removing the original comments completely, it could have been left in and slightly reworded, and then the quote from R. Kulsrud could have also been added to give more context and to neutralize the point of view a bit. This could still be done of course, there is nothing keeping us from adding it back in as long as it is not worded as 'bald fact'. -Ionized 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to find a better source. Since Kronberg is not a reliable source on the magnetic field of intergalactic space, he should not be used as the source for this measurement. --ScienceApologist 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you are being the judge of what a reliable source is compared to an unreliable source, the burden is on you to find the more reliable source. Until such time, the content should be put back into the article. -Ionized 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Since the content is not directly related to plasma cosmology, it will not be included. There are no plasma cosmology adherents who are making the measurement, so this doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Many edits

I made quite a few edits to the beginning of the article which I hope are bringing some continuity to our subject. I think these may bring us closer to understanding a definition of plasma cosmology. We need more citations for describing that this is exactly what Alfven believes. I will continue on with ambiplasma and the rest of the article in the near future. If there are any edits you find problematic, please let me know. --ScienceApologist 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I've reverted all of ScienceApologist's edits, which I thought he would have discussed first, bearing on mind the controversial nature of this article. I found that his edits tended to change the meaning and emphasis of the text which distinguished plasma cosmology. To show that I am not reverting wholesale for the sake of it, here are comments on most of these edits (please do not break up the points with replies):
  • Diff. States this is not a reliable source, when it is indeed peer reviewed, and discussing the history of the subject (rather than detailed scientific theories).
    • Kanipe as a science writer and not a scientist is not a reliable source on theoretical development.
  • Diff States use of "posit", but actually removes "the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of plasma", and replaces it a comment on plasma.
    • This edit merely removed redundancies as well as changing it from the topic positing to people positing.
  • Diff States "removing plasma physics didaction", and removes important characteristics of Plasma Cosmology, and replaces it with critical statement
    • Plasma physics that is standard should not be discussed in this article. We link to plasma physics for a reason.
  • Diff States "clause is not a natural conclusion.", but should have reworded keep both pieces of information
    • "Both pieces of information" are not relevant to this point. The universe being mostly plasma is already discussed above.
  • Diff States "appeal to authority", which this is not since the co-author is directly involved, and Peratt is already an authority.
    • Nope, the co-author in-and-of-himself is not the reason the IEEE is sympathetic to plasma cosmology. This is pure POV-pushing and spoonfeeding.
  • Diff States "text just to say that Alfven didn't use the idea.", when it says more, and includes a historical context.
    • There is nothing more to the "historical context" than Alfven developed MHD and then doesn't use it for cosmic plasmas.
      • Btw, MHD was an approximation that even Alfven admitted was unsuitable for many cosmic applications, as thoroughly discussed in his book. I agree that removal of this entire section was inappropriate. Seems to be another attempt to whittle the article down slowly. -Ionized 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Since it was unsuitable, why include it in this article? --ScienceApologist 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Diff States "need to verify the facts", when the statements included were already verified
    • The references were to solar system phenomena, not cosmological phenomena. A new sources is needed.
      • As argued above in the talk page, in PC, understanding of solar system phenomena is essential. -Ionized
        • Nowhere do I see a legitimate argument for this. Besides, cosmology, by definition, has nothing to do with the solar system. --ScienceApologist 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Diff States "Removing paragraph to overview", whereas the paragraph "While gravity is important.. " seems to be removed from the whole article, not removed to the overview.
    • Yep, I discuss that above. I was initially going to remove it to overview, but since it fails WP:V, it's outtathere.
  • Diff States "Removing spoonfed cruft.", but this is an important characteristic generally not considered outside the Plasma Universe
    • The charge separation, etc. need to be discussed in the context of Alfven's model. Since there is no reference, it is best to keep it as simple as possible. More can be added later when a reliable source for this arrives.
  • Diff States "cleaner description", but starts by replacing standard physics with statement that is not sympathetic in tone, and removes and entire paragraph.
    • Description was overly wordy and included alot of analogy writing that was inappropriate (beads on a string, etc.) The rewritten paragraphs illustrate the same idea but remove the overly-wordy description.

--ScienceApologist 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) --Iantresman 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, Ian, do not start edit wars like you just did. It's very inappropriate. I will respond to your comments, but reverting the entire set of edits on the basis of some fairly cosmetic concerns that I said I would address is very poor form. --ScienceApologist 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, it is courteous to discuss changes cooperatively with editors before making them unilaterally. Reverting them without discussion (for the second time) is not constructive. --Iantresman 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, there is discussion going on right here. Please, this is the kind of behavior that was intolerable when Eric did it, and it is just as intolerable when you do it. The record is all there of what I did and unless there is some pressing concern to revert back to the previous version, just leave it be. I am happy to discuss this, and I don't think that any of my edits were all that outrageous. I'll note that many of your points above were fairly cosmetic in their objection. Please respond to my comments if you think it was all that terrible. --ScienceApologist 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There was no discussion when you (a) made your edits (it was a unilateral decision) (b) When you reverted your edits.
  • You ignored my discussion, and reverted your edits without discussion for the SECOND TIME.
  • I asked you SPECIFICALLY not to break up my points with your comments and you have done just that.
  • You noted ".. unless there is some pressing concern to revert back to the previous version, just leave it be"... YES THERE ARE PRESSING CONCERNS, but you commented after the event, without discussion, and without any input from other editors. --Iantresman 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No one else other than you seems to have a problem with my edits, Ian. I've only made one revert in response to your revert. That's all. What, precisely, is the pressing concern? --ScienceApologist 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that in my opinion, you did at least attempt to be semi-civil in the talk page AFTER you had already made the changes in the article. What seems to be at issue is the lack of discussion BEFORE changes. It is not that no one else has a problem with your edits, it is just that writing and reworking this thing takes hours of work to pull off correctly, and with editors that come from such dramatically different viewpoints a natural conflict arises, and this should be remedied before changes are made rather than after. Also I see a few citations needed and I wish I still had my old bib file database because citations for all of that DO exist as I have seen it all in their original papers, it has just been a few years so I don't recall from memory what quote or idea came from which paper etc. I appreciate the inclusion of said ideas however, and with time their citation will be added because the citation does exist, just needs to be re-researched. -Ionized 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Kanipe

  • Your comment against Jeff Kanipe is an ad hominem as you are questioning his personal reliability as a source, and seems to be contrary to WP:LIVING. Indeed, WP:NPA gives an example of a personal attack as "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Suggesting that the views of a science writer makes a peer reviewed paper less worthy is completely subjective. Unless you have some source which suggests that Kanipe is unreliable, please present it, or withdraw the comment. --Iantresman 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally disagree. Kanipe is not a reliable source because he doesn't have the training to understand the scientific issues. That's all. Start an RfC if you disagree. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The peers who refereed his paper say otherwise. You're free to disagree, but you need to provide some evidence supporting your view. --Iantresman 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the peers who refereed the paper said that it could be published in the journal. I don't need to prove that Jeff isn't a scientist. That's a fact. --ScienceApologist 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The object of peer review is to ensure "authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally", and Kanipe's paper did so. That you personally believe Kanipe to be unreliable because he is a science writer is an ad hominem.
  • If we were to accept that science writers are not reliable sources, then what would that make you and me? --Iantresman 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what the Ap&SS reviewers said about that article? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, how is it that the peer reviewers would allow the article to pass if it did not fit within their boundary definition of science? Exactly what article and what journal are we discussing here? -Ionized 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the text removed from the article, referring to this article (click "Full Refereed Scanned Article" for full text) from Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227. --Iantresman 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the removed text. The removal of this, based upon the reasoning given for its removal, is absurd. The article appears to be a summarization of history etc, and was in a peer reviewed journal. It is not like Kanipe was including his OWN theories in the article, hence the attempt to discredit Kanipe and to remove the text based on the reasoning "Kanipe was not a scientist" appears to be flawed at the outset. It's removal could be based instead on redundancy etc, except that it is not entirely redundant and it gives another example of published history on the subject. What is the real issue here? Rather than remove it, reword it, work its flow a bit better. -Ionized 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind summarizing the history. I mind using a source by Kanipe. Find another source if you'd like. --ScienceApologist 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, without any evidence to the contrary, this is a personal prejudice against an individual. It would be like me ruling that a source from Einstein is inadmissible because be was a patent clerk, or Darwin for being a clergyman. --Iantresman 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, and I think you should have no problem finding someone else who says the same thing as Kanipe if it is as important to the subject of this article as you seem to think. --ScienceApologist 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you justify excluding Jeff Kanipe as a source in this article (a peer reviewed source), but including the David McCandless source (who is a technology writer, rather than a science writer, and not peer reivewed) in the Electric universe (concept) article? And further more, including Creationists as a source in the article on Redshift quantization --Iantresman 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion focused to this article, thanks. --ScienceApologist 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Kanipe is relevant to this article. The questions stands --Iantresman 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have already justified excluding Kanipe. What happens on other Wikipedia pages that you don't like is irrelevant. --ScienceApologist 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

99.9% of the universe is plasma

  • ScienceApologist, your edit removed a crucial description of the Plasma Universe, not just that Plasma Cosmologists believe that plasma is important, but that they consider most of the universe to be plasma. You had suggested this was redundant, but this is the introduction to the overview.
  • I also note that the article used to remind us that there are many references which describe the visible Universe as consisting of 99.9% plasma ... and this was removed by you too.[49]
  • This is verifiable on sites from Nasa [50], to Dr. Gerald Rogoff is Chairman of the Coalition for Plasma Science [51] to plasma.org [52] --Iantresman 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that SA still has a hidden agenda of removing as much information as possible from the article in order to either whittle it down to a level that indeed would appear non-encyclopedic, or to simply continue discredit of any information by removing details that would lend credence to PC. However it also appears that his demeanor is slightly improved, judged by reading his comments here on the talk page from today. I propose that any major edits to the article be discussed first, and that maybe we are given a bit of leeway to build the article back up to a state that truly reflects the history and meaning of PC. -Ionized 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC) And SA, I don't mean this analysis to be a personal insult or anything, just stating my opinion on your observed present and past editing behavior. If you indeed have no hidden agenda whatsoever, and your editing practices are due only to what you feel are proper editing ethics, then we simply need to come to a consensus as far as future edits are concerned. Again, I simply propose that any major edits that include removal of large chunks of article, or addition of disclaiming pov, be discussed on the talk page first. Understood that this takes a bit more work and requires more patience between all parties involved, but in the end a more civil atmosphere is achieved and true cooperation may result. This proposal would of course apply to any editor. Those that choose to be BOLD will just have to be reigned in, because it has been demonstrated that being bold on this article is simply a bad practice. Thanks for your consideration. -Ionized 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian and friends:

    • The fact that the majority of the universe is plasma is still mentioned. I just don't see a point in repeating it over and over again.
    • The reference to the universe being mostly plasma can be reinserted at the point where it is mentioned, but I don't see it as being that important. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think it is important to include such a reference.
    • I am not arguing that it is not verifiable, only that it doesn't need to be repeated.

--ScienceApologist 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't personally think it is important. Plasma people do. That is verifiable, that is what we report. I don't see this repeated elsewhere, certainly not in the introduction or overview.
  • ".. another drastic change in our approach to cosmical physics, namely, the realization of the importance of electrodynamic effects to the motion of dispersed media. [..] hydromagnetic and plasma phenomena dominate most of those regions which (by volume) constitute more than 99.999 ... percent of the universe. [..] our cosmic environment consists of plasma to more than 99.999 ... percent (by volume), this means a revision of a large part of cosmic physics.", Alfven, H., "Cosmology - Myth or science?" (1984) Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy
  • "One of the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfven, 1950). This prediction followed from the fact that volumewise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state." Peratt, A. L., "Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation" (1995) Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 97-107
  • Ian, I have included another statement now that refers directly to plasma's ubiquity. The 99.9% remark, however, will have to either be contextualized better if we are going to include it here.
  • I understand that Alfven uses the figure in his writing, but the number is not relevant to the phenomena he is writing about, it is simply the fact that plasma is common that he is interested in.
  • If you can point to exactly why the exact volume filling factor of plasma needs to be reported on this page, I'll be pleased to include it, but right now this advocacy looks like spoonfeeding. If people are interested in the subject of astrophysical plasma, let them read about it on the astrophysical plasmas page.
--ScienceApologist 12
53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dark matter

  • Art, do think that "Lerner accepts the existence of dark matter..."? To me, his quote seems to imply that he is considering warm plasma instead of the dark matter (as it is generally understood). I accept that warm plasma could be described as baryonic dark matter, but I don't think Lerner would use the phrase, and there could be confusion with non-Baryonic dark matter?
  • I also don't know whether Peratt and Lerner differ in this view. --Iantresman 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Peratt says A and Lerner says B, I'd say they differ. Wouldn't you? --Art Carlson 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Lerner in no way accepts the standard premise of Dark Matter. Just a few quotes from his popular book "BBNH": pg53 '..hypothetical creatures such as dark matter..' pg162 '..the dark matter itself was ruled out..' pg32 a section heading titled 'The Dark Matter that Wasn't There' etc etc. just as a few examples. -Ionized 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Figures in plasma cosmology

This section did seem a bit redundant. It might be a good idea to put a one- (or two-)line bio of Peratt and Lerner in the History section to avoid the awkward introductions in the text. That would also be the place to point out that we really don't talk about anybody else, i.e. since Alfven died in 1995, plasma cosmology has been a two-man show. --Art Carlson 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When it was first added the section was non-redundant because it included non-prominent figures who where auxiliary and not mentioned in the rest of the article. It is not a 2 man show, however the 2 men that you refer to seem to be the only professionals not afraid to continue publicly voicing their opinion. It will be interesting to see what the 07 Special Issue of IEEE contains, and who says what. I mourn the loss of the section simply because it leaves the reader with the impression that only a few people on earth are contributing or have contributed to the field, when it seems to me the auxiliary contributions have enough merit to include. -Ionized 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoonfeeding in Peratt's simulation caption

I shortened the caption to Peratt's simulation to conform to the amount of information that is included about the image itself. There is no discussion relevant to the images themselves of a galaxy rotation curve. There is also no discussion relevant to the images themselves of a thickness to the disk (other than it was a 2-D simulation). Therefore, I removed these points as spoonfeeding. If we are going to include the image, we should describe it as is. --ScienceApologist 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding external media

These external video media should be linked to in the external media section: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2379002511078041866&q=plasma+cosmology http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=584573302505202765&q=plasma+cosmology

Will someone please see that this gets done. -Ionized 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Iantresman 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed. The first line was inaccurate and therefore the source is unreliable for this page. It stated that a growing number of astronomers are doubting the Big Bang. This is false. --ScienceApologist 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really saying, that all we have to do is find one statement in a source, which we personally consider to be incorrect, and we can consider it unreliable?
  • And since you probably disagree with the content of EVERY source in this article, so by the same analogy we should remove them all the sources in this article? --Iantresman 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This is verifiably not correct. It isn't simply a matter of differences of opinion about science, it is just not true, so it is a misleading source that should not be used for this article. --ScienceApologist 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you even watch it beyond the 'first line'? Anyway, misleading in what sense? Please explain. The first line is a simple analogy to the old flat (and geocentric) world view, OF COURSE it was incorrect... -Ionized 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The first bit of the program clearly states that a growing number of astronomers are doubting the Big Bang. This is unequivocally false. --ScienceApologist 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I repeat, Are you really saying, that all we have to do is find one statement in a source, which we personally consider to be incorrect, and we can consider it unreliable?
  • And since you probably disagree with the content of EVERY source in this article, so by the same analogy we should remove them all the sources in this article? --Iantresman 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not saying those things. --ScienceApologist 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please prove your statement that the view is incorrect with verifiable analysis of the entire astronomical and astrophysical community. -Ionized 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Do an ADSABS search yourself, Ionized, and discover the closed-shop nature of cosmology at this time. Or just read the "cosmologystatement" your heroes signed. They make it clear that the Big Bang rules supreme. --ScienceApologist 20:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes it rules supreme, that is your research? Point me to the peer reviewed journal that hosts a paper on a statistical study of the personal belief regarding validity of the BB, of ALL astronomers and astrophysicists on earth, and that verifies your OPINION. -Ionized 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, if you will note, that's not the issue here. The issue is that the movie states that there are more and more astronomers who doubt the big bang. This is something that isn't true. Read any cosmology text published in the last few years and find out why. --ScienceApologist 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea is about a 'change in time' of beliefs, it is indeed true that if you start with a population that believes 100% in one idea, and then members of that population slowly begin dissent, even if only a tiny percentage, the fact is that there is an increase in that population of dissenting view. Are you really prepared to verify that there has been no change at all? -Ionized 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I never said there was "no change at all", because there was never a time that 100% of the community accepted the Big Bang. Indeed, there has been a change. More and more astronomers are accepting the Big Bang (especially as the old crumudgeons die-off). --ScienceApologist 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You must prove that, just as you want me to prove the reverse. -Ionized 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither of us need "prove" anything (what is this, a court of law?). The standard of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and I say the source listed was unreliable, in violation of WP:RS. I submit that what was unreliable was the statement that more and more astronomers doubt the Big Bang. I can find no evidence to this effect, in fact, I find consistent evidence to the opposite as shown by the sources I mention. (ADSABS, standard cosmology texts, etc.) That's all. --ScienceApologist 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, you are confusing sources with their content. You are also confusing verifiability with truth. --Iantresman 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think a video produced for Norwegian television is necessarily a reliable source. The fact that the source has content that is misleading means that I think I'm justified in arguing for its removal here. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The first line of WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources." However, what we are fighting over here is an EXTERNAL media link. The article content itself has not been based on these videos, they are simply being added in the external link section. WP:RS states specifically that it is refering to article content, not to external links. If I missed the section that describes that external links must be 'verifiable', please quote it here. -Ionized 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to give links to poor sources. We have an encyclopedia to consider. --ScienceApologist 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that it is NOT against WP:RS? Hence it should be put back into the external links section. -Ionized 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I see nothing in WP:ENC that is being violated by placing two relevant external links in the external link section. -Ionized 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it doesn't belong in the external links section. --ScienceApologist 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to this, in links to avoid it says: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources."
But you WHERE saying that, and had to change your reasoning twice before finally finding the proper rule to use to argue for removal of the content. The rule you point to does NOT specifically state that these links are not allowed, it specifically states "one should avoid:", it does not state that you can NOT link to said items. Where is the rule that states clearly and concisely that we can not add these two links, especially given that the entire argument you are making for its removal is based on your opinion of the 'first line'? -Ionized 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the external link guideline, unreliable sources are avoided. We avoid them by not including them. I reverted you because of this. --ScienceApologist 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ionized, this discussion is pointless. ScienceApologist's latest crusade sees the removal from the biography on Charles Bruce (physicist), external links to a summary of Bruce's work, and including nearly a dozen original articles by Bruce himself, and a biography.[53] (only one on the Web as far as I know). First time I've ever seen an author not considered a reliable enough source for his own work... except for Lerner of course, who had his own work removed [54] by... ScienceApologist!
  • And what kind of sources does ScienceApologist use in scientific articles such as Redshift quantization... "Answers in Genesis" and "Famed modern geocentrist Geraldus Bouw" of course.
  • I don't hold up much hope of resolving this issue. I've report it on the Arbitration enforcement page,[55], highlighting two dozen issues, but an administrators told me that my "best bet is to leave SA alone". --Iantresman 00:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it amazing that in the last arbitration SA was not even put on probation for his behavior here. Perhaps the process should be renewed? In the meantime, we should consider the re-addition of the content that SA removed today, specifically the two links in the external links section, and the section on Quasars discussed below. -Ionized 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and added back in one of the external links. We should still add in the one about catastrophism since it contains a lot about PC as well. -Ionized 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your contributions as a violation of WP:EL. --ScienceApologist 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As clearly stated, it is not a violation. "We avoid them by not including them." If THAT is the rule, then the rules need to be amended to CLEARLY state that they are to not be added. Currently, the rule states that is to be avoided, this does not state to not do it. It is clear that another round of arbitration is necessary. And again, its initial removal, by you, was based on YOUR opinion of the material, not by a consensus of editors. -Ionized 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
We avoid them by not adding them. Your splitting of hairs is, quite frankly, absurd. --ScienceApologist 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not absurd. If indeed the rule disallows external links to be added, based solely on the opinion of one editor who personally disagrees with the material on the external link, the rulebook needs to state this clearly and concisely, not using lax language such as 'one should avoid:'. As someone who proclaims to stick to strict definitions yourself, you should fully understand this principle. As it is, you remove the links because of your bias against the material, not because it is strictly violating any wiki rule, then you changed arguments a few times in order to justify your action, yet in my view and likely a few others, your multiple removals are indeed unjustified. -Ionized 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No one can dispute the fact that the movie contains a factual error from the get-go. We are not in the business of promoting factually inaccurate sources. --ScienceApologist 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While that comment doesn't really warrant a response due to the obvious double standard between the way the BB and PC articles are handled, I feel the need to remind you that indeed promotion of factually inaccurate sources and material is taking place here in Wiki, right on the BB page. It is why I argued for the removal of the BB articles 'featured' status last year. Examples of the factual inaccuracy can be found in the talk page archives, and my argument for its featured status removal centered around the history of Gamow's predictions and the history of Hubble, just as two examples. Factual, takes on a new meaning when it comes to promotion of the standard theories, history is rewritten. I don't think that this video or this article are attempting to rewrite history, just trying to change the view of the future. A true understanding of the systems of energy transfer throughout the universe might someday be very useful for human civilization. If we are going to use the word 'factual' as an argument for removal of material from this space, then the standard needs to be applied to mainstream articles as well. -Ionized 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like how you and Ian delve into the "tit-for-tat" editting style. If you have a problem with the Big Bang article, the place to get angry about it is not the plasma cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you are one of the people that voted against removal of the BB articles 'featured' status under the name Joshuaschroeder, I conclude that you know very well that I know where to 'get angry' about the Big Bang article. Nice attempt at degradation though. You don't like that I have a problem with double standards? Well, you are entitled to that opinion. -Ionized 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about a "double standard" on Wikipedia in general is not going to help edit this article. --ScienceApologist 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That, is a valid point. However, you miss the indirect argument, I was arguing indirectly that if you allow poor sources in other articles, then this article should have been allowed the external link to a video (which you consider a poor source, and which we do not.) Hence I was indirectly attempting to help edit this article. -Ionized 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lerner's quasar model

I removed this section to here for discussion:

===Quasars=== Lerner developed a plasma model of quasars based on the dense plasma focus fusion device. In this device, converging filaments of current form a tight, magnetically confined ball of plasma on the axis of cylindrical electrodes. As the magnetic field of the ball, or plasmoid, decays, it generates tremendous electric fields that accelerate a beam of ions in one direction and a beam of electrons in the other. In Lerner’s model, the electric currents generated by a galaxy spinning in an intergalactic magnetic field converge on the center, producing a giant plasmoid, or quasar. This metastable entity, confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it, generates both the beams and intense radiation observed with quasars and active galactic nuclei. Lerner compared in detail the predictions of this model with quasar observations.[2] This contradicts the standard model of quasars as distant active galactic nuclei (that is, supermassive black holes which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are accreting).


Here's the problem: the only reference to this section is to a paer Lerner wrote in 1986. A 20-year-old paper cannot deal with the current state of quasar observations (obviously). How important is Lerner's plasma focus to plasma cosmology? Can anyone find a more recent paper that can help us describe the importance of this? Has Lerner commented on the observations of host galaxies? What does Lerner think of Peratt's opinions from his galaxy simulations that follow Arp's wacko proposals that quasars form the cores of new galaxies? We need to be more careful in how we present these points: this section in particular is very much a spoonfeeding of information for reasons that do not support the general article.

--ScienceApologist 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your continuos removal of content from the article based on bias such as 'wacko'. Please refrain from touching this article, you have proven over time that indeed your agenda is to destroy it. -Ionized 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, my removal was based on the fact that the only reference to this section was to a 20-year-old paper that may not have relevance any more. But it may have relevance, I'm not sure. So let's talk about it here. And I'm entitled to my opinion about Arp's wacko ideas about quasars being ejected from AGN. Just as you are entitled to your ideas about the Big Bang being wrong. And I will not refrain from "touching" the article since I am an editor and am allowed to edit. --ScienceApologist 20:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You pull out a part of the article for discussion, then ask very important questions, and I gaurantee that in response you will begin saying things like 'prove it with a verifiable peer reviewed artcle', which may not have been published yet due to all of the standard censorship that surely is not unknown to you. You are clearly attempting to start another trap, a clear attempt to KEEP this out of the article because you know full well that coming up with 2006 references is likely impossible. However your reasoning is flawed at the outset, you can not say something is irrelevant because it is 20 years old, that would be like us saying Einsteins papers from 1905 are irrelevant. The content should not be removed based on this reasoning. -Ionized 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of bemoaning, this, perhaps you can help us reach a compromise on whether or not we need to include this 20-year-old quasar model of a single individual here. --ScienceApologist 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be included for a historical basis alone, if nothing else. First the attempts are to remove from the article any auxiliary contributions to PC based on the reasoning that those people are not 'plasma cosmologists'. Now we are moving on to removing direct contributions to PC? Am I the only one that is noticing the patterns? -Ionized 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it is all that important to the history of plasma cosmology. Can you explain what about it makes it important to the history of plasma cosmology? --ScienceApologist 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You are not convinced? Since when does article content rely solely upon your conviction? No, I will not take the time (right now anyhow) to point out the obvious to you. Perhaps later tonight. What if I where to say to you "I'm not convinced that Einstein's papers and ideas where all that important to Big Bang cosmology." Does that put the burden of proof onto you to convince me? And does that automatically mean that any part of any article here on wiki that mentions Einstein and his work should be removed simply because I am not convinced that it is important? -Ionized 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We are editors here, and we work from consensus. I can convince you that Einstein's relativity is important to GR. Explain to me why Lerner's quasar model is important to pc. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We are here to describe Plasma Cosmology, warts and all, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are certainly not here to judge it. If Plasma Cosmologist think that Santa Claus rules the rule, that's what we write, regardless of ScienceApologist's opinion on the subject. --Iantresman 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are here to describe plasma cosmology. However, just because a supporter of plasma cosmology has an idea does not make that idea relevant to plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that the idea was within the framework and inherently connected to plasma cosmology, so yes, it does make it relevant. How are you unable to see this? -Ionized 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that explaining quasars by using plasma-based arguments from a "plasma cosmologist" makes it relevant to plasma cosmology. Pretty basic connection if you ask me. ABlake 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Lerner makes plasma-based arguments about aneutronic fusion, does that make it relevant to plasma cosmology? --ScienceApologist 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
While Lerner does make plasma-based arguments about laboratory-based aneutronic fusion, he also compares that to the cosmos-scaled phenomena of quasars. So, yes, that does make it relevant. ABlake 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't we discuss aneutronic fusion in the article? --ScienceApologist 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it has its own article. Would you like to create an article specifically about Lerner's quasar model? Is there one already? -Ionized 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Poor rationale. Just because some topic doesn't have its own article doesn't mean it should be included here. --ScienceApologist 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ScienceApologist. We should include a line or two about Lerner's aneutronic fusion work, and tie that in to the quasar extrapolation. That makes sense since it shows an example of a plasma cosmologist's work and how it connects laboratory work with cosmological theory. Just make sure to reference it. Then we can stop arguing about this. ABlake 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to someone explaining to me how aneutronic fusion relates to cosmology in a coherent sentence or two that can be included in this article. Right now, color me skeptical. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Dense plasma focus is important to Plasma cosmology. It is explained in Lerner's paper. The physics of the plasma focus has not changed in that time. --Iantresman 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: "A is important to X field. It is explained in B's paper. The physics of A has not changed in that time". That's no justification, that's not even an attempt at one. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ScienceApologist, rather than disagreeing all the time, why don't you do some basic research and find out for yourself, rather than ripping everything out of the article that your personally disagree with, or have a problem with.
  • Let's see. A quick look at Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) searching for quasars and Alfven, or Lerner or Peratt, and we get a dozen hits in under 60 seconds. Not bad for a "bean counter".[56]
  • And before you criticise them for not being ALL to do with cosmology, or ALL being peer reviewed, or ALL reliable sources, there's enough there to begin with. --Iantresman 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Done some research. I see nothing in the research to indicate that plasma cosmology is dependent on Lerner's idea about quasars 20 years ago. --ScienceApologist 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't even your initial argument, and it certainly wasn't mine. If that has become your argument, it fails as well. The PC article is not restricted to the phenomena and theory that form its dependencies, which you have so gracefully removed as well. It can also include models built within its framework at a latter time, built on its foundations if you will. We are talking about a model about a phenomena addressed within PC, hence it is part of PC and should be in the article. -Ionized 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. As plasma cosmology is defined in the article, just because something is relevant to plasma doesn't mean it is necessarily relevant to plasma cosmology. Seriously, does no one have a rebuttal to my point? If not, then I can see that this was a good removal. --ScienceApologist 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one will ever have a rebuttal for your arguments, because you just won't accept them. This is not a discussion. Ever since you tried to label the article as pseudoscience,[57], twice, [58], based on no verifiable source, you have become the self-designated judge and jury of all minority views. --Iantresman 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, what, exactly, IS your point? This content needs to be added back into the article, SA is not the sole judge over what content should be in the PC article, based on his opinions of what relates to PC and what doesn't. Who here is arguing that 'if something is relevant to plasma, it is relevant to plasma cosmology'? While in a certain sense that is true due to the inherent nature of PC as being based on multi-scale observables, it is also not always the case. Besides, what YOU are debating is indeed a plasma cosmology model, formed by a plasma cosmologist within the framework of plasma cosmology. Are you prepared to argue that Lerner's model of quasar formation based on the physics behind the plasma focus device indeed has nothing to do with plasma cosmology? That would be like us arguing that any standard model of quasars, built by standard cosmologists, has nothing to do with standard cosmology. The irony is clear. -Ionized 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a dumping ground for all of Eric Lerner's ideas. Only those ideas directly related to modeling cosmology are to be included. Standard quasars models have nothing to do with standard cosmology. Lerner's quasar models have nothing to do with plasma cosmology (except that they involve plasma and Lerner -- which is a fallacious association without any verifiable connection between quasars and cosmology). --ScienceApologist 03:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

May I point out the 1986 paper that you originally brought up? And I changed back the title of this section to something more appropriate for civil discussion. ABlake 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You may point it out, but it still doesn't answer my question of what a plasma model for quasars has to do with cosmology. --ScienceApologist 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If "Standard quasars models have nothing to do with standard cosmology." is true, then why are any alternative interpretation of quasar so heavily fought against? Because indeed, our understanding of quasar and their redshift is essential to cosmology, and if it is truly the case that high redshift quasar are emitted from lower redshift AGN, this has ramifications to the overarching cosmological framework. -Ionized 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What's your evidence that alternative interpretations are "fought" against? I think you are way behind in the times, Ionized. Do you even know what the highest redshift object ever observed is? --ScienceApologist 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. One piece of evidence, is right here on this talk page, and indeed in this section. Answer to your second question, yes, I do. Goodnight, I have to work in the morning. -Ionized 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It might be better to actually do research rather than basing your opinions on the world in Wikipedia talkpages. Seeing as how the highest redshift quasar is nowhere near low redshift AGN, it is pretty bizarre to continue in this blind-alley advocacy, but that's a different matter. --ScienceApologist 03:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is a more recent paper concerning the issue of discordant redshift QSO and AGN associations. While it doesn't address all of your specific concerns, it does refute your insistence that QSO controversies where long ago dismissed. "On quasar distances and lifetimes in a local model", Bell, M.B., Astrophys. J., vol. 567, no. 2 ser. 1, pp. 801-10, 2002. -Ionized 15:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
At this point, your banter is bordering on sarcasm, and it brings a smile to my face. You have quite the sense of humor! -Ionized 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. However, knowing that indeed you are not being sarcastic, but rather attempting an Ad Hom by saying that I don't know how to research, Ill respond further. Whatever makes you think I would assume that the highest redshift QSO must be near lower redshift AGN? I use the word 'higher' with the reference being the AGN, which is lower. I did not state highest, and I also used the word IF. -Ionized 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And we are not here to research or judge. We're here to report what is in the literature. --Iantresman 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We are here not just to report what is in the literature, but to build a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive encyclopedia that gives (as near as we can muster) a clear and correct definition and explanation of the article in question. Being sarcastic doesn't help, and the interpersonal, intellectual banter is really bothersome when it doesn't contribute significantly to the resolution of the question at hand. ABlake 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I will try to be less personal when I write. It can be difficult at times though because this subject has had a profound impact on my life. However I do feel that my discussions in the talk page are based on attempts to contribute. In the future I will attempt to simply not respond to ad homish attacks, unless it is clear that a point is being missed. Thanks for your NPOV ABlake, it is seriously refreshing. -Ionized 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quasar model suggestions

<--- How's this? I removed the spoonfeeding but kept the main ideas and added the bit about his research into aneutronic fusion as a basis. What do you think?

===Quasars===In 1986, Lerner developed a plasma model of quasars based on his research into aneutronic fusion using the dense plasma focus device. In Lerner’s model, the electric currents generated by a galaxy spinning in an intergalactic magnetic field converge on the center of the galactic arms, producing a giant plasmoid, which is manifested in the form of a quasar. This metastable entity, confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it, generates both the beams and intense radiation observed with quasars and active galactic nuclei. [3] This model contradicts the standard model's explanation of quasars as distant active galactic nuclei (that is, supermassive black holes which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are accreting).
ABlake 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the correct verifiable and relevant term, as far as Plasma Cosmology is concerned is "dense plasma focus".[59] [60][61][62] Aneutronic fusion is completely different, and I am not aware of any verifiable sources that link it to Plasma Cosmology, unless you know otherwise. --Iantresman 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The DPF configuration is relevant, the neutrons are not. How about "based on his research into fusion energy using the dense plasma focus device" or simpler, "based on his research on the dense plasma focus"? --Art Carlson 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't know whether Lerner's research into fusion using the DPF is his reason for his application to Plasma Cosmology. I've not ready anything that supports this. However, the physics and characteristic of the DPF have led it being used in application to both the Plasma Universe, and, fusion. --Iantresman 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Does he claim to extrapolate the laboratory results to draw conclusions about cosmic plamsas? Does he at least claim to be inspired by the lab results to consider similar physics on a big scale? --Art Carlson 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, somewhere in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened", though I'm not terribly inclined to read it again to find the reference - it's a little too repetitive for me. TristanDC 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this section might be more suited to the article on Eric Lerner. However, I'm beginning to see Art's point. If it can be established that what Lerner is trying to do is the "scaling results" that pc claims to rely upon, then we can describe this as a "for example" point. However, I'm not sure that it deserves a separate piece. --ScienceApologist 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the basis of PC relies on inspiration from the lab and our near-earth environment, that was established by Birkleland and Alfven. PLEASE don't take what I next say as an insult, but if you go and read all of Lerner's book and papers, and those by Alfven as well, and analyze the framework with which even Birkeland studied the cosmos, it would be firmly understood that PC relies on these principles. This has been stated several times over the evolution of PC, yet seems to be continuously overlooked, I believe because of the basic paradigmatic differences between the approach followed in PC compared to standard BB cosmology. If you agree that it can be included into the article as a 'for example' point, that is OK with me, as long as it gets included. -Ionized 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) p.s., I suppose you are probably looking for specific verifiable references as usual, I would start with some papers that you can probably find online and have already been referenced to in the PC article. But the best source that I have found for Alfven's view is the book he wrote 'Cosmic Plasma'. Now, finding this book is a much more difficult matter, it took me many many months to find and purchase a used copy, but it was the most enlightening material I had found on the matter and well worth the effort of searching for a copy. I suppose I could be nice and read through it again so that I can give you all some direct quotes. Ill see about doing that soon as time permits (I am in the middle of a job switch and possibly moving very soon.) Thanks for your patience regarding 'verifiable' citations, but believe me, they do exist. -Ionized 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have read Lerner's travesty of a book and his peer-reviewed articles (at least the ones I know about). What we don't have yet is an indication that this "scaling" idealization is actually put into practice in a consistent fashion. It's basically every man for himself and anybody's allowed to call whatever they like the "framework". That makes it difficult to justify, in my mind. --ScienceApologist 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well you do have a point, and in fact a 'consistent fashion' was something still in development when Alfven published this book in 1981. I'm looking at the table of contents right now for 'Cosmic Plasma' and in the first chapter, section 1.2.1 'Scaling Procedures' Alfven immediately discusses this. OK, let me peruse this quickly. I hope this doesn't break copyright laws, here is some direct text as I read it in the book-
"Basic laws for scaling have been known for some time (summarized, e.g., in Alfven and Falthammar, 1963; with more recent progress surveyed by Siscoe, 1979) However, it should be remembered that scaling laws depend on a theoretical formalism which is probably only applicable to passive plasma regions, whereas it has not yet been clarified how scaling between active plasma regions should be done." He eventually goes on to claim that just because the active plasma region scaling formalism is in its infancy, this is not a reason to dismiss the approach altogether. So what you are viewing as an 'every man for himself' approach may indeed be the beginnings of a proper formalism for scaling active plasma regions, and a continued improvement in the formalism for passive. However this does not invalidate the approach, as consistent models often begin from inconsistency, and indeed these active scaling models began from a consistent approach of scaling what Alfven terms passive plasma regions.
Let me write what he defined as passive and active, just for minor clarification.
PASSIVE: "These regions may transmit different kinds of plasma waves and high energy particles. There may be transient currents, perpendicular to the magnetic field, changing the state of motion of the plasma, but not necessarily associated with strong electric fields and currents parallel to the magnetic field. A plasma of the passive kind fills most of space. If in an initially homogeneous plasma, the parameters in one region are changed above a certain limit, the plasma often reacts by setting up a discontinuous interphase (sic). Quite generally, instead of a continuous space variation of the parameters, the plasma 'prefers' to produce a discontinuity interphase separating two almost homogeneous regions. This may sometimes be the origin of double layers, taking up voltage differences, and current sheets, separating regions of different magnetization, temperature, and density."
ACTIVE: "Hence, besides the passive plasma regions, there are also active plasma regions where filamentary and sheet currents flow (Alfven, 1977). Since they transfer energy and produce sharp borders between different regions of passive plasmas, they are of decisive importance to the overall behavior of plasmas in space. This is true, even if their total volume is small, as is often the case. We refer to these two different types of active plasma regions as 'plasma cables' and 'boundary current sheets'." whoooo that was a lot of typing, hope this helps to further our discussion :) -Ionized 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So what this amounts to is basically "Lerner's best guess" as to how plasma can explain quasar observations as of 1986. What in the hell does this have to do with a cosmological model of the universe? The only way it makes sense is if plasma cosmology lives so in the past that they think the quasar controversies are still going on. If this is the case, we need to seriously rethink how we've written this article: it may need to be written from the perspective that there are a lot of has-beens who are living in the past. --ScienceApologist 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And just when I thought you where beginning to 'see the light'. -Ionized 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Magnetohydrodynamic scaling: From astrophysics to the laboratory", Ryutov, D.D. and Remington, B.A. and Robey, H.F. and Drake, R.P., Phys. Plasmas, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1804-16, 2001. An interesting, more recent take on the matter, focused on the MHD approximation. -Ionized 15:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So, here's my updated attempt...

===Quasars===As an example of how laboratory experiments are used to extrapolate large-scale phenomena, Lerner developed a plasma model of quasars based on his study of the dense plasma focus. In Lerner’s model, the electric currents generated by a galaxy spinning in an intergalactic magnetic field converge on the center of the galactic arms, producing a giant plasmoid, which is manifested in the form of a quasar. This metastable entity, confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it, generates both the beams and intense radiation observed with quasars and active galactic nuclei. [4] This model contradicts the standard model's explanation of quasars as distant active galactic nuclei (that is, supermassive black holes which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are accreting).

Any better? ABlake 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. --Iantresman 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of problems I see with this, I don't think Lerner did this as an "example" at all. I think what he did was just try to formulate a new model for quasars. The problem I'm having is that scientists propose new models for observed phenomena all the time. Typically, after 20 years go by and no one uses the model, it doesn't show up as a proposal in summary texts. I think that the problem I have is that this quasar model is even more obscure than plasma cosmology itself having been the subject of no critical review and receiving no refinements by Lerner or others to match future observations. Since it still isn't clear that QSOs have anything to do with cosmology, I think that this proposed section reads like original research. I'm afraid I object strenuously to its inclusion as such. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Original research" is unpublished, unverifiable material. Lerner's theory has been published in peer reviewed sources. Irrespective of whether it's right or wrong, whether he based it on reading tea-leaves in the bottom of a tea cup, is irrelevant. What matters is that it is verifiable (the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia), not whether you have issues with theory, or the motives, or whether you think it requires further critical review. --Iantresman 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps original research isn't the best way of describing my objections (though I do think a lot of the prose functions as original research). I think instead we should be worried about whether this quasar model is notable enough for inclusion here. In fact, I'd argue that Lerner's quasar model doesn't satisfy any of the ten possible notability justifications. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as Plasma Cosmology is concerned, it's notable. Referees during the peer review process decided it had reached the basic standards of scientific scholarship, and notable enough to be published.
  • Lerner's paper has been cited by notables such as Peratt and Winston Bostick (he researched and coined the word plasmoid.
  • As as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we can give minority subjects which have their own articles, as much space as we want (subject to WP:V and WP:RS). At some point I expect we'll spin off a dozen or so pages detailing aspects of the Plasma Universe in much more detail. --Iantresman 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Since there is no indication that this rises to the Wikipedia: Notability (science) standards, I maintain my objection until someone can explain to me otherwise. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you were going to mention a slight conflict of interest, having been involved in developing said Wikipedia: Notability (science) standards. In other words, the issue doesn't meet the standards which you are helping to set.
  • But the issue seems to pass the criteria, to me. --Iantresman 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(If this section ever manages to run the gauntlet, I will probably object to any statement that the plasmoid is "confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it" because that would violate the virial theorem. Eric Lerner and I have fought about this on aneutronic fusion, with each accusing the other of doing OR. Anyway, I think the question of notability needs to be decided first. --Art Carlson 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

As soon as one complaint is addressed and removed, another one is arbitrarily brought up. This is clearly an attempt, as stated before, to remove content from the article REGARDLESS of a solid reason why. And Art, if a debate exists whether or not his model violates any classical theorems, a summary of this debate could simply be included in the section, and in fact I would think that would make BB proponents happier because we all know how they love to see any competition debunked. -Ionized 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I also need to point out that if notability is going to be used as the next argument for removal of this section, it should be 'noted' that notability seems to apply to 'Topics', and from what I can gather in the notability page, topic is defined as an article itself about a topic, not just a sub-section. However I didn't read the page in-depth and I could be clearly missing the section that describes, sections. It is a frivolous argument to make in the first place hence my cursory examination. p.s.s and in fact, even if you can succesfully argue that the model is non-notable, it should still be 'merged' back into the Plasma Cosmology article, from which it was taken, as discussed on the notability page. -Ionized 01:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Peratt's galaxy formation model

Peratt's galaxy formation model is weirder and weirder the more I look into it. I realize he was developing this at a time when hierarchical formation models were still in their infancy, and so there was some freedome of speculation in the field at the time. However, his formation ideas are really strange. I think they go something like this:

QSO ejected --> Radio galaxy (double-lobes) --> Elliptical galaxy --> Irregular galaxy --> Spiral galaxy --> AGN --> QSO ejected.

Of course, we now know that there are major problems with such a timeline, but is this what other editors see in Peratt's listing? Also, how tied is the plasma cosmology models to such a process? Inquiring minds wish to know!

--ScienceApologist 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can find no sources which question Peratt's time line. Your comments amount to original research. You are confusing the most popular hypothesis of the day, with truth. It concerns me greatly that you are presenting a hypothesis as a truth. --Iantresman 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asking if there were sources which question Peratt's timeline. I was asking if my presentation of the timeline was correct. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue. Check a Reliable source. --Iantresman 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There will always be freedom of speculation, in any scientific field, regardless of attempts to stop it. Without this freedom, science would have been dead long ago. -Ionized 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Film

I've restored Randall Meyers film, which has an exception range of interviewees, from Sir Fred Hoyle to Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, and numerous professional astronomers and physicists. This exceeds verifiability and reliable source criteria with ease. --Iantresman 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it since the very first lines of the movie contain factual errors, it fails inclusion criteria per WP:EL. --ScienceApologist 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that any source that contains what you consider to be a factual error can be removed? --Iantresman 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words into my mouth. --ScienceApologist 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then CLARIFY your position because we're not mind-readers --Iantresman 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Quoting myself "I removed it since the very first lines of the movie contain factual errors, it fails inclusion criteria per WP:EL. --ScienceApologist 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)"
  • And round and round in bloody circles we go.
  • You said "the movie contain factual errors, it fails inclusion criteria per". The general criteria, is that "if a source contain factual errors, it fails inclusion criteria per"? --Iantresman 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The general criteria is found at WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been able to find any sources that support your opinion at the time that the film was made. Please provide a source. --Iantresman 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What was the factual error in question? ABlake 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The introduction to the film says (I've highlighted the perceived error):
"In the beginning was the Big Bang. We're told that 13- to 20-billion years ago, everything that makes up the Universe as we know it, was spontaneously created out of nothing in an unimaginatively violent explosion.
"But did it really happen as we are told? A growing number of astronomers doubt it, and are showing why."
--Iantresman 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
SA, in order to save time, is that your only argument against using the video? ABlake 16:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's more erroneous material as well. The "unimaginatively violent explosion" is also not factually correct. Then they mischaracterize the expanding universe with an incorrect graph (for the correct one see Image:Universes.GIF). Then they include a graphic that reinforces the "explosion" misconception with galaxies bursting away from each other in a bubble. And this is just in the first 5 minutes. Would you like me to go through and point out all the factual errors and misconceptions through the rest of the movie? --ScienceApologist 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know people, who in their opinion, are happy to point out the so-called errors in the Big Bang theory too. You're surely not suggesting that this theory is actually fact? Even the highly respectable Encyclopedia Britannica describes the "big-bang model" as "widely held theory of the evolution of the universe"[67] --Iantresman 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ian is saying that we should use the film in spite of objections to factual content. SA is saying that the policy on outside links says that sources that contain factual errors should not be included. Ian says that the big bang isn't without its own factual errors, so what's the big deal? So, my question is, does the video portray an accurate version of PC? Second, does it misrepresent other facts or POVs to the point that it becomes disinformation? If its value in educating on PC is overwhelmed by its misinformation on BB, then it shouldn't be used. If its value is greater, then use it. ABlake 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the video isn't about plasma cosmology exclusively. It's mostly about other things. --ScienceApologist 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It includes the only video interviews that I am aware of, from proponents of Plasma Cosmology, talking about Plasma Cosmology. This makes it a unique resources. It also includes much about non-Standard cosmology, most of which is shared by Plasma Cosmology proponents. It does not misrepresent it's own point of view. In my opinion, the statement in question is a valid point of view, and not necessarily a factually inaccurate point of view. --Iantresman 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that the video does have interviews with some big names in plasma cosmology, so that alone makes it notable and somewhat authoritative, and it gives a good history of the development of cosmology, from a PC POV. On the other hand, it is POV pushing to the extent that the graphics show the crumbling of various BB ideas like dark matter, etc, without rebuttals from the BB proponants. However, that is typical of any production made by proponants of a topic. As long as that was understood by inclusion of a disclaimer, I would be OK with including the film in the Plasma Cosmology article. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a perfectly NPOV product from either camp, but this seems like a good representation of the PC POV by PC advocates. So, my vote is to include it with a disclaimer. ABlake 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a terrible history. Basic propaganda. I don't see it having any encyclopedic value. The only place it may belong is in Eric Lerner's article to show what kind of Triumph of the Will lengths he will go to get his point across. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggested disclaimer: A film presenting non-standard cosmologies, including plasma cosmology, from a positive and non-critical viewpoint that is not necessarily shared by mainstream science. --Iantresman 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I watched it. Amusing propaganda, not encyclopaedic as far as I can see. You'd require too much background knowledge to realise where you were being hoodwinked, and that's not really acceptable. Not necessarily shared! Ian, if nothing else you are a master of understatement :-) Guy (Help!) 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Propaganda, not encyclopedic, hoodwinked. So now I can see why you are also so opposed to the Wolf effect being described as redshift, as described by the experts, and peer reviewed sources. --Iantresman 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It was more propaganda than documentary, but it was a product of the PC movement, as are the articles and books that its advocates write. For that reason, I think it should be included as a reference, with an appropriately strong disclaimer. However, as a reference piece, it is not worthy of quotation in an article as a reliable source.
ScienceApologist, the Triumph of the Wills allusion is an example of your occasionally inappropriate editing style, and I strongly caution you to avoid that. ABlake 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Ian, it rather depends on how you view it, doesn't it? The film is uncritical, and plasma cosmology is seriously fringe. To pretend it has "growing acceptance", as the film does, is somewhat disingenuous, isn't it? And when it comes down to it, I don't seem to be the one sanctioned by ArbCom for disruption but still insisting on my form of words, rejecting even the suggestion of compromise. So my conscience is pretty clear here. Of course, you could always try to find some middle ground. I'll be more than happy to talk about suggestions for compromise. If I didn't think there was a way of proceeding I would not be spending the time - the fact that you seem to be restraining yourself from actually disrupting the articles I take as a good sign. I don't think SA's occasional crowing and taunting helps much, either.
I'd not oppose the film going in Lerner's article at this point, but I really do think it is excessively uncritical and far, far too biased to have it here. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it depends on point of view. That's why we step out from points of view, and describe things in a neutral point of view.
  • And yes the Universe film is uncritical. But if I had a dollar for every uncritical documentary on the Big Bang...
  • You don't compromise verifiable facts. It's like suggesting that we don't describe gases as "fluids" even though it's verifiably described as such, because it would confuse the average person who tends to think of fluids as liquids. We're here to education people that gases are described by experts as fluids because... and likewise we should be educating readers that the Wolf effect has been described as a redshift because... --Iantresman 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the very biased nature of the video demonstrates the POV of advocates of PC very well. Am I the only one who thinks that this is a very good representation of PC advocates, and that accurate representations are valuable to articles and should be included for that very reason? Even if every single word of it was completely and obviously false, that would still make it a good example. Again, it wouldn't be a good source for quotation in articles because it isn't a reliable source of fact, but it is a great source for PC POV. But also, the disclaimer must be equal to the reference. ABlake 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. WP:POV tells us that "points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects.".
  • But so many people think that POV is the opposite of NPOV (it isn't); or that NPOV is "Mainstream science" (it isn't), or that describing one POV requires another POV in order to turn it into NPOV (it doesn't)
  • That's another good reason for describing the Wolf effect as a redshift. It's an accurate representation of the POV of all the experts and sources who describe it as such. I am not aware of any verifiable POVs that disagree. --Iantresman 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ian, just for awhile, let's stay on the topic of the video. If the arguments and logic fit for the Wolf effect, then please apply them on that talk page. It reduces the scope and increases the focus, and cuts down on the interpersonal baggage from other arguments. Thanks. ABlake 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies. --Iantresman 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Paradigmatic differences are inherently POV, that is not necessarily a bad thing, and since the article is about a point of view, it should be represented to some extent. -Ionized 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's another problem no one is addressing: this film isn't just about plasma cosmology. In fact, it is mostly about ideas other than plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that point was summarily addressed above. I will add that the information it gives in its entirety indeed contributes to the basic understanding of plasma cosmology, and PC is used numerous times as example, and indeed most of the second half of the film mentions PC. This is OK, but IFF the consensus between all of us is that it is NOT ok, maybe we could add the film on the non-standard cosmology page. Surely that might receive less objection? -Ionized 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the film is reliable enough to be used in non-standard cosmology either. The problem with the film is that it isn't close to a balanced source of information, nor does it correspond to a primary source. It would be like linking to What the bleep do we know on quantum mind. --ScienceApologist 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But it contains video and audio footage of 'primary sources' talking about their ideas. Anyhow, do with it what you will, I'm spent for the night. -Ionized 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What we are talking about here isn't exactly uneditted footage of interviews of the subjects (a primary source). We're talking about a calculated presentation of material (a secondary source). If it were solely interview footage, I wouldn't have any problem. --ScienceApologist 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a valid criticism of any documentary that sets out to explain one point of view. Every film is edited, but to suggest that it is a "calculated presentation" in anything other than how it was intended is to suggest impropriety; this is bunkum... unless you have a source that suggests otherwise.
  • Your use of terms like "propaganda" tells us your subjective views on the film, which are not objective criteria. --Iantresman 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has a problem that the film contains material that isn't about plasma cosmology. Let's give him a chance to specifically explain what other materials or subjects cause him problems, and why. Then we'll discuss the merits of his arguments. ABlake 11:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I really do have a problem with this link, though. The problem is that it masquerades as a scholarly overview, but it includes much which is simply wrong, and a lot of claims which, if repeated in an article, would be removed outright or at least qualified to the point of being pretty much nullified. Just because a this is one of the very few available treatments of the subject does not mean we should link to it. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the film includes material which the Big Bang paradigm considers wrong, just as the film contains material which it considers is wrong about the Big Bang. If we quash every minority view because mainstream science is considered correct by definition, then there is no minority view.
  • The film describes the viewpoint of some eminent scientists who happen to have alternative views. This is legitimate, and it is not for editor to pre-judge.
  • ScienceApologist's argument is bogus. Every book on cosmology includes material on standard physics, but is included because it is relevant. --Iantresman 12:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You appear to be focusing on personalities again. Your long-running dispute with SA is a matter of record. I don't really care overmuch about that. I do care that this film is problematic for a number of reasons. To draw parallels between Arp and Galileo, for example, is absurd - the scientific world today is utterly different from the Church in Galileo's day; Arp's problem was that he was trying to use scarce research resources to pursue what his peers saw as a blind alley. The film is polemical, and I resist it for precisely the same reason I would resist a video of Kent Hovind in Creationism. External links should be informative, not promotional; this film is 100% promotional and not at all a scholarly treatment of the subject. It seeks to portray plasma cosmology not only as right, but as being self-evidently right and suppressed by by the mainstream for reasons of dogma. To characterise it as propaganda is pretty reasonable; the fawning, reverntial tones of the voice-over, the uncritical reporting of the views of non-standard cosmology proponents, the selective presentation of individual discordant phenomena without noting how the standard accepted theory fits almost every observation. Look at Myers' summary on IMDB: A group of renowned cosmologists and astrophysicist are in search of a realistic picture of the universe. Their research and observational discoveries point in a direction diametrically opposed to the predominant Bog Bang theory - this leads to a series of sociological situations that verge on the extreme dogma controls wielded against Copernicus and Galileo in the past; only now against our protagonists of the 21st century. This is a controversial science documentary touching on the nerve of everything astronomers and cosmologist claim they know about the universe today. Come on! We're not here to promote, we're here to document. This does not document, thereby extending our documentation fo the subject, it promotes. It is outright polemic. Add to that the vexed questions of linking to rich media and whether the somewhat untrustworthy-sounding "popefucker33.blogspot.com" has rights to upload this content anyway, there are more reasons not to include it than to include it. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick note, it is uploaded by an entirely different user on Google video as well, but the included links are the slightly higher quality encoded version. If there is a problem with who uploaded the video to Google, we could switch the links to the slightly poorer quality version that is also on Google Video. -Ionized 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to your view that Arp was denied telescope time solely on financial reasons, and that his peers somehow knew the results of his observations before he made them. It is academic why Arp was denied telescope time, but the metaphor is there.
  • I am pleased that you had the opportunity to discover that your felt the film was polemic and promotional. That is an understandable POV from coming from a mainstream perspective. But the best people to describe a POV is those who promote it. That's not to say that others may criticize their POV, and if such a criticism exists, by all means link to it.
  • Yes, their work is in direct opposition to the Big Bang. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy does not require minority views to get approval form the mainstream.
  • Your point regarding copyright content has substance, and to be on the safe side, we should not link to the movie on Google Video. --Iantresman 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Until a version can be found that we can be sure is free of strict copyright, this discussion should end. After thinking deeply about ABlake's questions below, I vote that we switch focus to that section. It was started as a subsection of 'this' section, but it seems a bit more appropriate to make it into its own section, so I did this. -Ionized 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Excellent summary, JzG. I would add that the following points are included in the movie that are not directly related to plasma cosmology:

  • Arp's work (though it seems that Peratt used his work to explain some of his simulations, Arp himself does not comment on pc).
  • Redshift quantization.
  • Quasar controversies (that ended in the 1980s, for all intents and purposes).
  • Tired light

--ScienceApologist 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Philipp Kronberg, "New Probes of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields by Radiometry and Faraday Rotation", J. Korean Astron. Soc., 37, 343 (2004).
  2. ^ E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193‑222.
  3. ^ E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193‑222.
  4. ^ E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193‑222.