Talk:Plasma cosmology

"Electric Universe (physics)" redirects here
"Electric Universe (physics)" is a redirect to here.

If this is correct, then this article should include a "Template:Redirect" at the top and/or a bolded E.U. mention within the lede.

But if this redirect is incorrect, then attention of some sort is needed at that redirect itself so it doesn't point here. (That might be deleting the redirect (and perhaps salting it? although that may be extreme); it might be providing a stub EU article. But this parenthetical "what to do" is relatively secondary to the primary point "something needs doing".)

Could those who know about the topics (I know nothing at all about either) suggest which way to go?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Per policy, there really isn't a lot of choice involved. Either find sources that directly state how "Electric Universe' relates to 'Plasma cosmology', and include an explanation based on such content in the article, or delete the redirect. Unexplained 'redirects' that merely insinuate some sort of connection aren't remotely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So you're suggesting RfD of the "EU (physics)" redirect?  Fine with me.  But I've never done one of those, and there seem to be several options (speedy; discussion; etc.).  Could you, with your greater experience and understanding of the "per policy" issues, actively initiate the appropriate RfD mechanism?  Thanks.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably best to leave it for a few days, in case anyone can come up with a relevant source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Relevant? Sure, right from the horse's mouth: "The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology". But nothing on that page is even close to passing as a reliable source. Here's a single line from Forbes: "and so plasma cosmology — rebranded a few decades ago as the electric Universe..." Given how fringe all of this is, that should be sufficient to keep the redirect, no? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, if this target article, P.C., is fringe, shouldn't there be a template at the head of this article? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that it should. - Parejkoj (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hoo boy. This would take a while to dig up. The short version is that this started out as the "electric universe" concept but quickly got renamed to "plasma cosmology" when scientists rightly pointed out that the universe doesn't work the way its proponents claimed. I remember seeing some of its proponents fervently arguing for it way back in the early 00s... but that's not a reliable source. It might be difficult to actually track down an RS regarding the tie between the two. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my take. As I understand it, plasma cosmology is an attempt by some actual cosmologists and physicists to come up with a working alternative to standard cosmology that pays more attention to the tenets of plasma physics, in combination with gravitation, to model large scale structure, radiation background, galactic evolution, the light elements, and so on. It is certainly a minority area, by no means complete, it is even controversial, and so on; but the likes of Birkeland, Hannes Alfvén, Perratt, Halton Arp, Lerner, the Burbidges, and so on who contributed to its development are/were published working astronomers or scientists in their own right. Mavericks, maybe. In contrast, the "electric universe" folks as far as I can tell are Velikovsky fans who are trying to use some plasma cosmology ideas to make their other loony ideas sound more respectable. Their main channel seems to be their https://www.thunderbolts.info/ website, where they pedal books and flaky YouTube "documentaries" which are essentially retreads of Worlds in Collision and Chariots of the Gods. I think it's safe to say that while PC is an exploratory diversion in otherwise ordinary physics, with few proponents and plenty of critics, it nonetheless sticks to the usual methods of scientific enquiry; while EU is more like intelligent design or flat-earth theory, cherry picking some "sciencey" sounding things to prop up weird beliefs: that Venus popped out of Jupiter one day and went whizzing by the Earth, and the Egyptians all wrote about it, or something - I don't know, I didn't read it. Why would I? It's drivel. — Jon (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Once you have to resort to personal attacks, you lose all credibility to comment in the first place. It’s bullying, which in turn is a sign of insecurity and phobia, conscious or otherwise. Mcnaugha (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That comment was left over a year ago. Please don't dredge up old issues. Also, your own psychoanalysis of the editor is a personal attack. Don't do that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

He also reported that flat galaxy rotation curves were simulated without dark matter.[30][dubious – discuss]
The tag [dubious – discuss] asks for this sentence to be discussed or clarified, so here goes. Clearly the idea that the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology is not accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus which explains it using dark matter. However, that is not what the sentence is arguing, it is simply stating that according to Peratt the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology. This is well documented in the sources already cited in the article. So I removed the "dubious" tag. Hope that helps? Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's how I read it as well. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)