Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 11

Astronomer weighing in
You need to be careful what you place here.

Tony Perrat's two papers from the 1980s are pretty much uncited in the mainstream community and so don't deserve considerable exposition here.

I also removed an entire uncited section about the behavior of Birkeland currents which may be true but hasn't been established as relevant to plasma cosmology.

A few other poorly discussed points were enhanced.

Thanks.

209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you were the type of expert the tag above the article was calling for as you obviously have a POV here, as shown by the section underneath on "Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers"!


 * To answer your particular points: this is an article on plasma cosmology and Peratt's papers are clearly important and relevant to the topic (N.B. there are more than 2 papers). They do deserve considerable exposition here as to remove them is to remove key work, leaving the reader wondering what is the relevance of plasma cosmology. That's why I have replaced that section.


 * The "entire uncited section about the behavior of Birkeland currents which may be true but hasn't been established as relevant to plasma cosmology" was actually cited and Birkeland currents are clearly relevant to plasma cosmology. That's why I have replaced that section. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to find a citation to state that Birkeland currents are relevant to plasma cosmology, but on rereading the article it actually says "Alfvén hypothesized that Birkeland currents ... were responsible for many filamentary structures ...". I don't think another citation is needed, but if you think it is, please just add the citation to Alfven's work. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers
These IEEE transactions papers are not well-received in the cosmological community and so probably shouldn't be used as a basis for the article since they haven't been vetted by professional editors who are familiar with astrophysical observations and literature.

209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All IEEE Transactions are top peer-reviewed journals. The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science say they cover "Engineered Materials, Dielectrics & Plasmas ; Power, Energy, & Industry Applications", i.e. they cover plasma which is obviously the key component of plasma cosmology. It is one of the top journals in the field of plasma research. And it has put out special editions on Space and Cosmic Plasma, the latest being the 7th special edition in Aug 2007, the 6th special edition being in Dec 2003, so it clearly considers itself to be of relevance in the field of plasma cosmology.


 * To recommend removing journal papers of a first class, world class, journal, which explicitly deals with the topic of plasma cosmology, on a page on plasma cosmology, on the grounds that it is not well received by "your" community is clearly POV (I say "your" community because you claim above to be an astronomer). You seem here to be trying to suppress an alternative POV by denigrating and disallowing sources which support an alternative view to your own? Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, to the extent that this is an article about cosmology, it's reasonable to require reliable sources for cosmology, which that journal is not. But this article isn't actually about cosmology, it's about "plasma cosmology", a fringe science topic that simply has no reliable sources (at least not post Alfven).  Removing those articles would be like removing references from an wiki on astrology because they aren't peer-reviewed articles in an astrophysical journal.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, to the extent that this is an article on plasma cosmology, which is a recognized area of study by the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, it is an entirely reliable source for plasma cosmology. Interesting that even Waleswatcher, who refers to it as "fringe science" with "no reliable sources" can see that the IEEE Transactions references should remain. Johnnyc (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "These IEEE transactions papers are not well-received in the cosmological community and so probably shouldn't be used as a basis for the article since they haven't been vetted by professional editors who are familiar with astrophysical observations and literature." Opinionated, unsubstantiated tripe. And you are so sure of this how, exactly, oh anonymous one? Davesmith au (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly accurate, and can be supported easily (for instance by the lack of cites to those papers from astrophysics journals, from the fact that the IEEE is an engineering association, from the editorial board, etc. etc.). But in my view it's not relevant, because those papers are pretty much the only published work on plasma cosmology of the last 20 years.  If wiki is going to have an article on PC, what other sources can it use?  As long as the article is clear that most of this is fringe science with little or no connection to real astrophysics, I don't see the problem.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 11:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One definition of an engineer is a practical or applied scientist, as opposed to a theoretical scientist such as a physicist. So there's really no need to look down your nose at engineers. And are astrophysicists truly physicists (like Alfven and Birkeland for example were), or are they mathematicians? Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is no such definition. Engineers are not scientists.  They have totally different goals and methods.  Scientists are people interested in investigating and understanding nature, while engineers are interested in applying technical knowledge to build and maintain machines or other useful things.  And physicists are not "theoretical scientists" or "mathematicians", they do experiments and (in the case of astrophysicists especially) make observations and collect data.  If this article were really about the science of cosmology, those IEEE papers would not qualify as reliable sources.  But it isn't, and there are no other sources for "plasma cosmology" post 1990.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Einstein was a theoretical physicist, but he isn't exactly well known for any actual experiments except his famous "thought experiments". Tesla was an electrical engineer and is famous for his experiments. It seems to me that Tesla, having done actual experiments in labs was more of a scientist that Einstein was, who worked mostly with pencil, paper, and a typewriter. Johnnyc (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Another astronomer backing up Waleswatcher and 209.2.217.151 here: Plasma Cosmology (PC) is entirely irrelevant to modern cosmology, and has been for at least the past couple decades. Whether the IEEE Transactions that include PC were actually peer reviewed is unclear, but the quality of the work in those particular issues is very poor, so if they were reviewed it wasn't thorough. Cosmologists don't cite plasma cosmology work with good reason: such work is almost universally rubbish. That said, Waleswatcher's point that those Transactions are the only thing available for this wiki article is also true. I'm not sure where the balance lies, but we definitely need to be clear just how far from the mainstream this is. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Section on galaxies in violation of WP:FRINGE
Please see this diff.

The problem with this section is that none of the citations have been noticed by independent sources. This is absolutely a requirement for an article per WP:FRINGE. "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."

These points have not been referenced by independent sources (in other words, they haven't been noticed by people not connected to plasma cosmology). Thus, we should not be writing about them because there is no way to evaluation their quality, accuracy, or reliability.

A bit more about this subject which may be too much for this talk page to handle is found here.

50.74.135.246 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, you're absolutely right.


 * I'd add that this is also a horrifying case of WP:SYNTH and perhaps also WP:OR. The references that discuss small-scale plasma arcs produced in the laboratory that "look like" galaxies don't in any way support the idea that galaxies are formed by the same mechanism.  Far from it, because the dominant forces in galaxy formation is gravity - which is quite utterly negligible in lab-scale experiments - the appearance of the lab experiments could merely be coincidence or it could just be a case of pareidolia.  To make this connection without some pretty serious WP:RS papers that make those same connections is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. SteveBaker (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH or WP:OR applies to synthesis or original research by an editor. The article describes the views of plasma cosmology proponents, even if their theory is wrong. The article must make it clear that this view of galaxy formation is that of plasma cosmology proponents, include references that verify their views, and note that the mainstream view of galaxy formation is described in another article. The section does not make this clear and needs to be edited, not deleted. --122.137.150.149 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is that our article (before trimming) said that some experiment in the lab (plasma formations look like a galaxy - for which we presumably have WP:RS) leads to some conclusion (galaxies form - which is obvious and we have RS if we need it). If there is a reliable source that makes that connection - then we can use it and state what it says.  The factual claim that this thing leads to that thing is a "synthesis" from multiple sources.  If we have a reference to show that this is a valid synthesis - then we're OK.  Without it, it's just us editors claiming that - which is in clear breach of WP:SYNTH and probably WP:NOR.  The claims covering this synthesis come from unreliable non-mainstream sources - so we can't use them.  Continuing to make this connection between two disparate things without some RS to connect them is an editor-created synthesis - and it's not allowed - even if the two things it's connecting are both well sourced. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can't combine material from sources without another reliable source that makes the connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop the wikilawyering with allusions to WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. To take these points in order, the section was neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR as all the points were made by the authors of the cited references, so it was neither original work nor even a synthesis made by wiki editors. Synthesis is taking two or more pieces of existing work and drawing a conclusion that is not stated in the original works. There was nothing unreferenced because this being a non-mainstream science article the standard of referencing has to be considerably higher than for mainstream work. So neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR applies here because there is nothing said which the authors didn't say; or can you point out any example?


 * The remaining point is by 50.74.135.246 about the need for "independent sources (in other words, they haven't been noticed by people not connected to plasma cosmology)". There is a long section just above this section called Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers which was started by 209.2.217.151, wishing to stop that journal from being used on anything to do with plasma cosmology. I think the consensus was that IEEE Transactions can be used. Also having looked up the section in WP:FRINGE, it asks for independent, reliable sources and the IEEE Transactions clearly meets those criteria - although probably not of course in the opinion of 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151. The aim of specifying independent, reliable sources was obviously to stop vanity publishing or private web sites built to advance a particular theory from being used to justify a fringe theory. The IEEE Transactions are way above that level. Other references were from the New York Times which IMHO is also an independent and reliable source. And other peer reviewed journals were referenced too. So the deletion of this section was based on wikilawyering, and the absurdity of the claim demonstrates bias by 50.74.135.246 and an attempt to censor what can appear in Wikipedia above and beyond what the Wikipedia community decides.


 * I have therefore reverted the edits. I also think 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 are sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have reported them as such, see Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can see ScienceApologist is not a blocked user and the SPI appears to have concluded similarly. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist aka Joshua P. Schroeder aka VanishedUser314159 is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. The IPs 50.74.135.246 and 209.2.217.151 were found to be sock puppets for ScienceApologist and have been blocked for a year. See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for a log of all ScienceApologist's blocks and Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist for details of this case. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume the claim about WP:SYNTH was based in part on this sentence "Laboratory experiments done in the 1950s ... showed plasma shapes which mimicked the shape of real galaxies". This was based on a New York Times article, the headline of which was given in the refs and which ran "Physicist 'Creates' Universe in a Test Tube; Atom Gun Produces Galaxies and Gives Clues to Creation Cosmos 'Created' in a Test Tube". I toned down the claim from physicist created galaxies in a test tube, but otherwise I think the headline says what the article said. If this was the basis of the claim of WP:SYNTH it would seem the editors making that claim didn't even bother to read the piece. Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see what source links it to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand? The New York Times article is about plasma and galaxies and is a source. What is not linked?


 * About ScienceApologist. I wasn't around when it happened, but there are clues all over this part of Wikipedia about what happened. Anyway, as I understand it, ScienceApologist has a life-long ban from Wikipedia because he does not agree with Wikipedia's philosophy that anyone can edit. His opinion is that only mainstream astronomers can judge what is acceptable or not in articles on astronomy in an encyclopedia. That is a reasonable point, but not one that Wikipedia endorses; instead he should be promoting Scholarpedia. He is vehement in his opposition to fringe theories gaining any credence by having articles in Wikipedia. The question is what type of fringe science is plasma cosmology? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting the record straight: ScienceApologist was (justifiably) banned for "Abusive sock-puppetry" - not because of disagreements with Wikipedia's philosophy as you claim. Wikipedia doesn't ban people for their beliefs. SteveBaker (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Plasma Cosmology is the kind of fringe science I described in my above comment on May 15th: "... entirely irrelevant to modern cosmology, and has been for at least the past couple decades." Besides all the usual mathematical and observational arguments given previously regarding how plasma cosmology ideas don't work in practice, or are mutually-contradictory, there have been no real quantitative tests of it by its proponents. Plasma in a tube having spiral structure is a far cry from an actual simulation of galaxy formation and evolution (e.g. Guedes et al., 2011). As I and others have said above, the article needs reliable 2nd and 3rd party sources, and those are going to be hard to come by because plasma cosmology is so fringe. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading this section, it was pretty clear to me that consensus was to remove the section as being essentially unverifiable since there were no independent references to these claims. I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that plasma cosmology proposals should be explained, but if there has been no direct notice of the ideas, it is difficult to argue which content is acceptable and which is not. There are many, many proposals made that never receive any notice at all from the scientific community. It is pretty clearly against the policies of Wikipedia to mention them in the articles at this website. I therefore removed the section. It would be a good idea to get consensus before reinstating any of that content. 192.80.65.234 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the article section being essentially unverifiable, after reading this talk section and the one above - Talk:Plasma cosmology - it is pretty clear that the consensus was that there are plenty of independent references (the IEEE Transactions being included), although some editors took exception to the claims by Bostick to have created galaxies in a test-tube. Since that claim was referenced by the New York Times and an academic jornal, it seems to me those editors objected because they believed the theory is wrong, not because it was unsourced (e.g. the comment by SteveBaker "Far from it, because the dominant forces in galaxy formation is gravity - which is quite utterly negligible in lab-scale experiments" is clearly discussing the theory, not the citation). Your assertion is clearly a false reading of these discussions. Also it is flagged on this talk page that edits to this article can be controversial. I totally agree consensus should be achieved, but deleting a section before discussing it and then claiming anyone reverting it should seek consensus is not editing in the spirit of consensus. I have therefore reverted your deletion. I note 192.80.65.234 and 216.236.252.234 (who did the deletion in the main article) are closely linked IP addresses belonging to Boston Public Library (BPL.ORG; MVA.Net). Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Smell the Bias
Ah, the refreshing smell of bias in the air. This talk page reads like an exercise bias application. Davesmith au (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a very helpful comment. Can you be more specific about which section(s) you feel are problematic - and why?  If possible, suggest how we can do better.  Constructive criticism can only improve the article.  Simply bemoaning the current state in broad and unspecific ways just forces people to mentally label you as a useless pain in the butt.  Heck, we don't even know which way you think its biassed!  We might react to your post by pushing the article even further away from where you think the point of balance might be! SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment related to the talk page, not the article. Those who know me (and yes, I have a history of attempting to improve both article space and talk page content) know where I think the bias is. My talk page comment relating to the talk page ("This talk page reads like ...") should have no bearing on "pushing the article even further away from where [I] think the point of balance might be". If you, for example, were to do that in "reaction" to my talk page post, would this not be an indication of some bias or personal feeling getting in the way of proper content? Furthermore, - "just forces people to mentally label you as a useless pain in the butt." - considering that I consider you are likely a "normal" person not endowed with the capacity to read the minds of others, I conclude that your comment reflects how you yourself feel, in which case it's at the very least pushing the boundaries of no personal attacks. Davesmith au (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to "improve talk page content", then you would do better to keep the purpose in mind (WP:Talk):
 * Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
 * Art Carlson (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Ref. 9 in the article is to Anthony Peratt's webpage "Plasma Universe" for the disclaimer "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." But Peratt has been a frequent presenter at Electric Universe-themed conferences sponsored by David Talbott, chairman of the Thunderbolts Project and contributors to the August 2007 IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science included Electric Universe promoters D.E. Scott, W. Thornhill, and C.J. Ransom. Such propinquity belies the independence indicated by Peratt's disclaimer. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a joke. People come here to learn about plasma cosmology and instead they get a bunch of junk put up by a group of people who absolutely hate plasma cosmology. The bias is so thick that it's reeking up my office as I type this. To me, it looks like a bunch of scared children trying to keep the adults from finding out what is really going on here. 75.82.138.62 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected
Please add the {Disputed|section}}  tags to the article on section three. Alternatively, consider carefully whether the version being advocated for by User:Aarghdvaark is appropriately discussed in terms or original research, neutrality, factual accuracy, and god references. If you, like I, come to the conclusion that he is ignoring consensus as above, please revert this edit:. Goodsheard1 (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}
 * The section is phrased a bit too credulous, but I'm not seeing a serious problem here. It basically needs some of the detail cut out, just leaving enough to let folks know how this model differs from mainstream cosmology. As the article stands, this section is far too verbose and specific about claims made for this model; it comes across as attempting to argue in favor of the model, rather than just explaining it. Also, I don't see why you're asking us to revert an edit made in his sandbox. Finally, I don't need to just slap some templates on there as if that were a solution.
 * I won't have time this week to devote to going through the sources, but I'll try to get to it next week. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made some detailed comments above, perhaps you can reply to them. It is a bit strange that someone would come claiming to help, but not have time to do so. As it is, I'd like to wait for someone with the time to answer the edit request and thank you that you acknowledged the credulous phrasing and problematic sourcing in the section. Goodsheard1 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reported Goodsheard1 as a suspected sockpuppet of ScienceApologist, see Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist, along with the Boston Public Library IPs. I will attempt to answer some of the questions above over the next few weeks if I can get the time. Sorry SA. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit interesting that Aarghdvaark reverted after protection. Isn't WP:WRONG appropriate at some point? Goodsheard1 (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. He reverted after the page was protected to allow only autoconfirmed users to edit. He was well within his rights to revert. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean be "rights" since Wikipedia editing is about privilege, really. But what I'm wondering is why no one is dealing substantively with my criticism. I understand you may not have time to wade through the obnoxious amount of text, but you might notice the other user seems stubbornly unwilling to discuss the substantive points. Goodsheard1 (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited myself. Thanks. Goodsheard1 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment
Comments by sock puppet removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is the comparison between the two versions -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Goodsheard1's version. I agree that this article needs to be reined in and tightened up.  Since this is WP:FRINGE we need to reflect the current mainstream view and carefully avoid stating parts of this theory as "truth" when they are in reality nothing more than outmoded arguments rehashed by a tiny minority.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Goodsheard1 turns out to be a confirmed sock of ScienceApologist - who is a banned user - I can no longer accept his version of the article. I support the need to reorganize it - but a ban is a ban and I would not want to support violations of this sort.  Hence I must withdraw my support and recommend a revert. SteveBaker (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Goodsheard1's version. Agree with SteveBaker: Goodsheard1's version is better, and the article should be cleaned up even more in that vein. There is no acceptance of Plasma Cosmology among astronomers and cosmologists, and its proponents have done no new work in over a decade+. This is why there are so few secondary sources. The article should reflect this.- Parejkoj (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer Goodsheard1's version, due to fringe concerns, but I also think Goodsheard1 is most likely a sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to his User page, you're correct. This is User:ScienceApologist again.  I have (reluctantly) reverted his changes pending further discussion. SteveBaker (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * This is a complicated issue, and unfortunately I don’t think it can be closed with a simple yes/no answer. Concerns were raised that the topic has not received enough response in mainstream reliable sources to warrant inclusion here, and that notable parts of the section are already covered elsewhere in the article. By policy, content that is not supported by independent reliable sources can be removed; however, there seems to be differences of opinion whether this means scrapping the entire section, and whether certain sources should be considered reliable in the context of the article. Consider asking an outside opinion at WP:RSN if you can’t reach agreement on that point here.


 * In any case, there is strong consensus that the current wording and viewpoint of the section need work. As stated, the text needs to be based on reliable independent sources. Specifically, it should be made sure that the text does not present original synthesis of otherwise unrelated publications. Due weight should be given to different viewpoints – this is a difficult task and concerns were raised from both sides: that the article presented an inappropriately supportive view of the topic, and on the other hand that the actual views of its supporters are being misrepresented or suppressed in the article. WP:FRINGE does not require every sentence to repeat that the view is not supported by mainstream science, but the article does need to make it clear to the reader that it’s about a fringe topic.


 * In conclusion, I don’t see consensus for a summary removal of the section, but pretty much everyone seems to agree that the text is in need of improving. If it proves to be excessively difficult to reach agreement on the text and to make it comply with our policies by the normal editing process, please consider using appropriate dispute resolution channels such as WP:DRN to resolve the issues. Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. This was certainly a difficult close, so if I've missed something important or if there is something unclear about the closure, please let me know on my talk page.

I propose that the section Plasma_cosmology be removed due to WP:FRINGE concerns, that it actively plays down the mainstream position and that it contains a synthesis of unrelated publications into the section. The only perspectives given are those of the supporters, cited to their articles, nowhere near enough of the mainstream position is given. Adequate coverage is given in the remaining sections. This article attracts a specific sockpuppet, so be aware that I may remove comments from obvious sockpuppets per WP:DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It does appear to be, well WP:INUNIVERSE.  Any connection between the Great Wall and plasma physics is pure synthesis; it doesn't even look plausible if the model were accepted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. This article really does need to be dialled back a whole lot.  WP:FRINGE requires that we give emphasis to the mainstream view and not give undue weight to the supporting view.  Also this "triple jump" analogy is stretched too far and certainly shouldn't be a section title. SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree The WP:FRINGE guideline says that a minority view ".. must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" (WP:FRINGE first paragraph). In an article devoted to a minority subject (like this one) we should "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" (see WP:WEIGHT). --2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:VALID, we only address issues if mainstream sources exist as it unduly legitimizes the theory: "... we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That applies only in a mainstream article. Describing a minority article doesn't legitimize it if we write it in the right style. I think the section is not written in the most appropriate way, and can be improved. If The Hand That Feeds You says, the section is far too credulous and supportive, that can be changed. --2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It applies to all content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support either removing the section entirely, or cutting it down to just the basic explanation. As is, the section is far too credulous and supportive. And 4E7D (need to find a better shorthand for IPv6 users), that section is entirely about the minority fringe view, not the majority mainstream view. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with using ScienceApologist's version in the section above. It suffers from the same problems as this page suffered from before, namely stopping the flow of the article by qualifying every sentence with comments like: "counter to the modern understanding of galaxy evolution", and "flatly contradicts the consensus". I've no objection to this information being included, only I think it shoul be beneath the main text. This was the purpose of the section Comparison to the standard model of Big Bang cosmology. Ironically, I think doing it like SA proposes actually weakens the mainstream argument because it rapidly becomes clear to a reader that this article has been, well, vandalized actually. In support of my view I quote the comment by user  Johnnyc on 13 April 2012 in this article's talk page archives which started me trying to improve things: "However, as an outsider, I expect a Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology to provide an exposition of the history and ideas of plasma cosmologists, with a section devoted to criticism. Instead what I found were attempts at misrepresentation and at times even suppression of what proponents of PC actually believe, with constant attempts to insert the orthodox views wherever possible". And that's how it seemed to me too, so I started to edit it although I am neither a plasma cosmologist nor an astrophysicist.Aarghdvaark (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, ScienceApologist's comment in his proposed version that "In 1986, in a paper in a trade journal for Lasers and Particle Beams" is way off-beam in that the cited journal Lasers and Particle Beams is an academic journal with a very respectable impact factor of 3.656 in 2010 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LPB). Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with the section being improved. Frankly it has taken far too much energy fighting off SA to concentrate on proper editing, and a linked section was removed without changing this section, so yes it is confusing. Thanks to everyone who helped in stopping him. BTW I don't understand the comment by User:HandThatFeeds above: "As is, the section is far too credulous and supportive". Credulous is fair comment, but supportive is out of left field - I read that to mean you think an editor of this section should be un-supportive, but I have tried to be neutral. Aarghdvaark (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood what it means to be neutral on wikipedia, if two things are covered equally in the sources, sure we give WP:BALANCE, but when one subject is in the complete minority, an artificial balance actually makes the article non-neutral, see WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE for more. This is especially important with covering subtopics that are so fringe that no mainstream source even covers it, we don't cover them, as the lack of a mainstream response creates non-neutrality issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:WIEGHT says that in an article devoted to a minority subject, we only need "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". The "Step 3" section does not do this, and does not link Bostick to plasma cosmology. The style of the writing is wrong, not the facts it is trying to explain. --2001:49F0:A000:8:2E0:81FF:FEB8:4E7D (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The section is OR and Synth based entirely on in-universe fringe sources, with no indication of notability in the real-world scholarly community. Grossly violates WP:WEIGHT as well. It can be removed in it's entirety, as anything noteworthy is already treated elsewhere in the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * People keep raising the furphy about "OR and Synth", despite me explaining that it just isn't so. Anyway, to forge the link between Bostick's work and plasma cosmology (not that any was needed since it is self evidently about plasma and galaxies), there is this quote in the reference A. Peratt (1986) "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies": "Bostick ... was the first to record the formation of spiral structures in the laboratory from interacting plasmoids and to note the striking similarity to their galactic analogs". Since Peratt is here reviewing someone else's work, the article counts as yet another secondary source for Bostick's work.
 * Incidentally, I do not accept the labelling of the New York Times in the disputed section as an unreliable source. Critics of this article wanted secondary sources, and according to Wiki guidelines good quality newspapers are excellent secondary sources. Also the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science were agreed in the section Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers on this talk page by everyone except ScienceApologist to be acceptable sources for this page - so they should not be labelled as unreliable sources either. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to science, a reliable secondary source example is an academic book, not a newspaper. Newspapers aren't reliable for that. See Identifying_reliable_sources_%28natural_sciences%29. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a look at Identifying reliable sources thanks. It also says there that "Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". That's exactly what I've tried to do, by putting a peer reviewed academic article with the New York Times article.Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with removing the section from the article. I suggest that when this is done, it be moved to talk.  Cardamon (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree in part How about renaming it to simply "Large scale structure," and rewriting it to contain a briefer summary of the main points from the books and papers by Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner. It shouldn't be too hard, has been attempted on this article many, many times before, even by Lerner himself, and I've watched it come and go for 8 years now. Such a summary needs to be able to make its points without every sentence ending with "in contradiction to mainstream cosmology" because that point is and should be made elsewhere in the article, and also because mainstream cosmology does not need to be defended any more than plasma cosmology does. These are ideas, not hill forts, and we are volunteer content editors, not crusaders. Jon (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea to rename it as above, or even as ScienceApologist's choice in his version of the section as Galaxies and quasars. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Renamed the section as Large scale structure. Title was a first stab, but consensus was for a name change. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From the above the consensus is for removal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In cosmology, large scale structure refers to clusters of galaxies and larger structures, not to galaxies themselves, so "Large scale structure" is not a good name. I would go with "Galaxies and quasars", except for the last two paragraphs, that really do deal with LSS. Since theories of galaxy formation was one of the mainstays of post-Alfven plasma cosmologists, it doesn't seem right to remove the section entirely, but striking the right tone, as in all fringe science topics, will not be easy. Art Carlson (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with the section being improved, and most of the article with it. This is my first contact with the subject and I agree that the naive bits I have skimmed in the article look like simplistic rubbish that i am not going to waste my time on. However, there seems to be a lot of CYA on both sides, referring to "accepted as mainstream science today" and so on. The article reads like a pile of polemic snippets, which is neither good for writing standards nor coherence in general. The lede is fairly OK, including the remarks on acceptance, because that is where the evaluations should go, perhaps together with a closing section on general appraisal and perspective being added to the article as a whole. I am not usually in favour of anything of the following type, but I reckon that this is a job for a committee of participants (a peer review committee if you like, plus, if necessary, someone who can handle the writing quality but is not competent in the technical aspects of the field.) to edit and if necessary to rewrite the article, having locked it against normal editing, including merely autoconfirmed editors. Anyone not on the committee who wants to add material could then do so by submitting it through the talk page. The topic, whether as a topic in science or fringe studies, is of interest, but not in the current stilted minefield form. JonRichfield (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree as well Those are some excellent points and I find myself in agreement. I've installed the WikiTrust tool, and I can see that User:Aarghdvaark wrote most of that section. Jesse V. (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For those coming via RfC: Aarghdvaark has renamed the section under discussion, it is Plasma_cosmology. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep section That section as it stands is just plain difficult to read. That said, the topic seems important in context (key perhaps) and I think it plain that an article on fringe science will have large sections on, well, fringe science.  The trick is to make sure it is clear to the reader that this is a fringe topic.  The article does that fairly well.  Other than being fairly unreadable, I don't see a problem with covering the topic found in that section here. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As identified above by Jesse V., it's mostly written by me. Sorry about it being "fairly unreadable", but in my defence editors who object to this content being here at all insisted on direct quotes (otherwise I got accused of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR), and also the mainstream view needs to be stated. As an example of the difficulty of editing this section, you can see it has tags for the New York Times - which I think is simply absurd for a supplemental reference which establishes notability, if the NYT is unreliable then surely nothing is reliable? And also for the IEEE Transactions, despite there being a whole discussion above Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers where the consensus was that they were reliable sources for this article. Sigh ... Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Academic sources are expected to be used for science, particularly contentious claims, hence NYT is unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the NYT is by default reliable. If you think it isn't in this case, I'd suggest you take it to the RSN.  Same with IEEE transactions.  I know that journal in a limited way.  It's pretty prestigious and by default reliable unless there is a known specific problem.  That doesn't mean the science in it is correct, merely that it was peer reviewed and found acceptable.  Again for something like this you _really_ need consensus to treat such a high-quality source as unreliable.  Hobit (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The popular press does an awful job of covering science, the NYT included. Agree with the others that real peer-reviewed academic sources are required. As for the IEEE journal, this may be peer-reviewed, but it's rather outside of their field, which is electrical and electronic engineering and computer science. It therefore carries a lot less weight than a physics or astronomy journal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing is "by default reliable". Reliability is always dependent on the particular text under consideration. Ask at, RSN, they will tell you the same thing I have just said. See Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) for more. You should be looking for cosmology journals, not IEEE journals, they don't have the necessary expertise to peer review the cosmology claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes. But these sources exist and they are reliable sources.  We'd like better sources, but we cite what we have rather than cite nothing.  And the link you provide doesn't say we can't, or even shouldn't, use them...  Again, take it to RSN if you want to exclude a source that is generally considered high quality.   Hobit (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are never considered particularly reliable when it comes to science. I think that should be apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Defining "Electric Universe"?
It is not apparent to me after examining David Talbott's Wikipedia entry that linking to it provides a definition of "Electric Universe", a subject whose Wikipedia entries were deleted years ago for lack of any reliable sources, among other deficiencies. Furthermore, in point of fact, Talbott has no proprietary interest in the subject since it was invented by Ralph Juergens (d. 1979) in 1967 to reconcile celestial mechanics with Velikovskian catastrophism and has been popularized in recent years by Australian systems engineer Wallace Thornhill and retired professor of electrical engineering Donald E. Scott. Talbott has no educational credentials in physics and astronomy, although he has co-authored materials dealing with the Electric Univese with Thornhill. If there is a need to provide a definition for Electric Universe, then another means would better be provided, possibly linking to content at Thunderbolts.info. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I defer to your greater knowledge of the use and history of the term. I just think if we mention it at all we should say what the heck it is, or give the reader a leg up to figure it out for himself. Art Carlson (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Art, while recognizing the risk of creating a mini-entry on a banned subject in the course of composing a decent defintion of this verboten subject. I propose that the reference no. 9 to Peratt's disclaimer be relocated to earlier in the sentence with the reference on "Electric Universe" providing the definition, which I suggest be something like the following: Begin ref: The Electric Universe cosmology, conceived by Ralph Juergens (d. 1979) in 1967 with competing variations promoted recently by Wallace Thornhill and Donald E. Scott in collaboration with the Thunderbolts Project spearheaded by David Talbott, is plasma-theoretic and posits that the Sun and other stars are isothermal and isodense and derive their energy electrically from outside, rather than from nuclear fusion within, driven by a non-uniform distribution of space charge in the galaxy which motivates stellar electric discharges a.k.a. "sunshine" or "starshine". See Wal Thornhill, Gravity vs Plasma (1999): http://www.holoscience.com/wp/gravity-vs-plasma/ and Ralph Juergens, "Galactic Space Charge and Stellar Energy", S.I.S. Review I(4), 1977, 26-29; text of 1967 article rejected by Nature. End ref. F.Y.I.: Scott also has a webpage and several Electric Universe enthusiasts do, too. Criticism of Electric Universe ideas by Tim Thompson and Tom Bridgman may be found on the WWW and BAUT Forum and JREF Forum have hosted debates on aspects of Electric Universe cosmology in recent years. The Velikovsky Encyclopedia entry "Electric Stars" also contains useful background information; see http://www.velikovsky.info/Electric_Stars. I defer to another or others to finalize this definition for inclusion in Plasma Cosmology entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Criticism of Electric Universe ideas by Tim Thompson and Tom Bridgman ..." Hey Phaedrus7, you left out Nereid! Oh, wait a minute I see what you did, Tim won't be too happy you've almost blown his cover here. And I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the obsessive compulsive postcard/email campaigns of C. Leroy Ellenberger - why not put all the pseudoskeptics into one basket? Davesmith au (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not just delete the sentence mentioning Electric Universe from this article? The only reason to have it there is if somebody comes looking for EU and winds up in PC, he will know he's in the wrong place. That argument is a bit weak if WP has decided against having an EU article. Another possible reason is to distinguish the respectable field of PC from the kookiness of EU, but I don't think that's our problem here. Art Carlson (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia contains entries for Immanuel Velikovsky and related entities, providing some mention/coverage for "Electric Universe", which is a related topic, would be worthwhile. The disqualified/deleted content on this subject was objectionable because it was not NPOV having been originated by supporters and lacked third-party RS citations, a condition that persists since authorities who continue to comment on Velikovsky topics do not engage the "Electric Universe" material, except on blogs and other WWW fora, which sourcing is not encouraged in Wikipedia. In this light, I support the insertion of a brief definition of "Electric Universe" based on the information provided above on 23 July which would be perfected by someone more objective than I. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "... a brief definition of "Electric Universe" based on the information provided above ..." Rather than basing anything on the questionable diatribe of one anonymous (and subjective "... by someone more objective than I") editor on Wikipedia, surely it's acceptable to go directly to the source of information, for information about that source. That is to say it makes more sense to get it from the horse's mouth rather than the other end... For those who want to know what the Electric Universe is really about, you can find out by reading their "Essential Guide to the Electric Universe" - http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eg-contents/ - Davesmith au (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great but EU folks also believe Valles Marineris was created by lightning strikes and that cave art by Australian aborigines are depictions of giant lightning plasmids in the sky... Jon (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jon, reword as follows: 'That's great but EU research also suggests that Valles Marineris was created by huge electrical discharges and that cave art by Australian aborigines are depictions of giant electric discharge events in the sky...' and you'd be much closer to home. When you actually take the time to study the science involved, you'll be able to appreciate why these things are proposed. Of course if you choose to believe that what you've been instructed is correct, that's entirely up to you. This is not the place to start an EU discussion, I'm simply trying to point out that the most accurate, indeed logical sources for defining EU would be EU materials.  That's not rocket science, after all... Davesmith au (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling it "research" would be violation of WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling it 'research' would be correct and not a violation of anything. Just read WP entry of the term Research hereby 'basic research' and its purpose. (Siggy G (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC))

Of course, the cruel truth that editor Davesmith au refuses to confront is the fact that the Electric Universe is disproven by among many factors (a) the failure to detect the relativistic electrons assumed to be powering the Sun, (b) the existence of convection in photospheric granulation indicated by Doppler readings of upwelling and descending velocities, and (c) the results of helioseismology which indicates the Sun's density increases with depth contradicting the isodense body stipulated by the EU model. It is also notable to point out that Davesmith au has not claimed my suggested definition above contains any errors. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Again P7, at the risk of repeating myself, this is NOT the place for a discussion on the merits or otherwise of EU. But of course you already know that, don't you.  Just can't help yourself, try to control the urge anyhow.  As to your own definition above, it's so full of holes which have been pointed out to you many times IRL that I'm not about to waste my time here.  Why use someone's inaccurate original research when we could go straight to the source? Davesmith au (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are preferable, not primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * *facepalm* I don't know why I bother. P7's synthesis OR diatribe is surely not considered more accurate than the horse's mouth. This is not about any kind of varifiability, but about what EU is about.  IF we're going to have a definition of EU, surely it should come from an EU source?  Again, this is (supposed to be) just about defining "Electric Universe". Davesmith au (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE still applies; if EU is more fringe than PC, then nothing about it should appear here. If it's more-or-less comparable, a brief mention might be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO having followed EU handwaving qua research since 1973, there can be no doubt that "EU is more fringe than PC". Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that I have not advocated mention of EU in the PC article. I am simply attempting to provide a source for a definition of EU as others are hell-bent on not only including it, but denigrating it to the hilt. There are editors around here who wish to include certain topics/people only so that they can then paint them in a bad light.  It happens all the time.  P7's diatribe is a prime example.  'Let's include a reference to EU and say lots of bad things about it'...  Considering his IRL activities regarding this topic and his constant IRL hounding of researchers, their colleagues, their employers, their funding streams, and such Phaedrus7 should have declared a COI years ago, but he refuses to so that he can keep this charade of trying to help going.  I should know.  I've been on the receiving end of his obsessive email campaigns now for some years, though I've asked him on more than one occasion to desist sending them to me.  Yet he's free to roam around here anonymously in the full knowledge that anyone 'outing' him will be excommunicated and their transgression permanently removed from the record.  Wikipedia would be a wonderful tool if not for the anonymity it protects so vehemently. Davesmith au (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If noone is advocating mention of EU in the PC article, why are we discussing the definition? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see your point.  I have removed it, in the absence of further detail.  It's not an important note, even in the reference used.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you editor Rubin for "acting boldly". In the interest of general edification, considering the innuendo from editor Davesmith_au, perhaps he might direct the interested editor to a concise definition of EU in the EU literature because I have never recognized one in the vast body of analogies with laboratory plasma phenomena that dominate the EU literature, as in Wal Thornhill's 1998 The Electric Universe and Don Scott's 2006 The Electric Sky. In the absence of any concise definition provided by EU writers, deducing one from the EU literature would clearly be an excercise in OR, which is not condoned by WP. Phaedrus7 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In my haste earlier today I neglected to remark on other of editor Davesmith)au's concerns. With respect to COI, my ongoing opposition to, and criticism of, Dave Talbott's "Saturn Myth" and its related EU in which in the memory of humankind Saturn hovered over Earth's north pole during the seasonless "Golden Age" is no more a COI than any other editor's opposition to such pseudoscientific notions as the flat earth, hollow earth, or Sitchin's fantasies about Nibiru invading the inner Solar System every 3600 years like clockwork. As for "obsession", what is more obsessive, promoting the "Saturn Myth" for 40 years since 1972 or opposing it for merely 20 years since 1992? Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

current consensus of astrophysicists
I find this statement a bit troublesome:
 * The current consensus of astrophysicists is instead that Einstein's theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity, explains the origin and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales.

The LCDM model involves nearly everything we know about physics — nuclear physics (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the primordial abundance of the elements), plasma physics (Recombination, BAOs, and the CMB), atomic physics (Reionization and formation of some structures), and turbulence — not just gravity. Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, but the point here is to differentiate plasma cosmology from mainstream cosmology. The big bang is one thing that does, but more fundamental is the difference between the mainstream view that gravity is totally dominant in most areas, and the plasma cosmology view that the e/m force needs to be taken into account too. I see your point, but is there a better way of expressing what the statement is trying to say? Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to overburden the intro, but it would be more accurate to say "explains the structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales after the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation decoupled from matter." The actual origin of the universe, or indeed anything before the end of the Planck epoch, is currently out of the range of physics, and up to the end of the era of recombination, EM most certainly played a decisive role. I believe that EM in the form of cooling radiation is thought to be important for the behavior of baryonic matter up to the scale of galaxy clusters. I guess I may be bothered by some descriptions of plasma cosmology that make it sound like mainstream cosmology never thought to consider the role of EM at cosmic scales, as opposed to considering it and deciding it was unimportant. Art Carlson (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the article page in line with the suggestion above. But I have another point I find troublesome from the introduction: "Its [plasma cosmology's] central idea is that the dynamics of ionized gases (or plasmas) plays a decisive role in the physics of the universe at scales larger than the Solar system". I think this has caused problems in two ways, firstly it tends to suggest that mainstream science ignores e/m and secondly it tends to suggest that plasma cosmology ignores gravity - I know some people have come to these conclusions. Neither of these suggestions are correct. I suggest this sentence is changed to something like: "Whilst the mainstream scientific view is that the dynamics of ionized gases (or plasmas) plays an important role in the physics of the universe at scales larger than the Solar system, the plasma cosmology view is that electromagnetic forces play a more important role than in the mainstream view whilst acknowledging that gravity also plays an important role". Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OR, SYNTH, PRIMARY
Edits were made which included original research, original synthesis and material cited only to primary sources, see WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening section
I've been asked to get consensus for my recent edits (which was reverted by IRWolfie) through the Talk pages. My intention has been to get a proper description of what Plasma cosmology is, also in regards to the cited sources. First attempted edit: "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang model of standard physical cosmology." as opposed to "loose set of non-standard ideas" which currently stands. The former is in line with what "non-standard cosmology" is described as and also in line with sources, while the latter (and currently standing) sounds more like someone's opinion and it doesn't correspond with the cited reference. The current wording; "Non-standard ideas" even links to wikipedia's "Non-standard cosmology"; so the attempted edit seems valid. Second attempted edit: "Its central idea is that the dynamics of plasmas can be extrapolated from laboratory experiments to cosmic scale and that electric currents within cosmic plasma give rise to the large-scale structure of the universe. as opposed to just "Its central idea is that the dynamics of ionized gases (or plasmas) plays a decisive role in the physics of the universe at scales larger than the Solar system" which currently stands. The former is a better description and 100% in line with the references (Peratt, Alfvén) and also mentioned further down in the wiki entry (plasma scaling). The latter is a correct, but sparse description. Third attempted edit: "Some of the main proponents has suggested that pinched electric currents are the mechanism responsible for initiating the gravitational collapse of matter in the plasma state." is also a fundamental mechanism described by both Alfven and Peratt, also summarized in the reference by plasma physiscist Alv Egeland; "Kristian Birkeland: The first space scientist". Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 (2009) 1749–1755. Another reference can be added to this (Peratt paper). Siggy G (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First edit and Second edit: Your sources are primary source (if this was fiction it would be described as "in universe"), we should be getting the perspectives of academic secondary sources to describe Plasma Cosmology, particularly in the lead description (tertiary sources would also be suitable). For the third edit the paper linked doesn't appear to mention plasma cosmology (and it's not an appropriate journal). In particular, just before mentioning pinched Birkeland currents it mentions atmospheric effects like auroral rays (which makes sense as it's an atmospheric journal), so it's original research to add it to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are OK if used appropriately. If a primary source clearly describes plasma cosmology, then a primary source is OK. The perspectives of academic secondary sources, describes the response of academia, which is not the same thing, but also important to include in addition to the basic description. The current introduction looks like WP:SYNTH "a term describing a loose set of non-standard ideas" -- says who? This does not appear anywhere in the source provided. I think that sources describing plasma cosmology need to be identified first, and then an accurate summary produced from them. --46.164.138.135 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Loose set" I think was introduced, I forget by whom, but it seems a fair description since amongst other reasons plasma cosmology has a long history, "non-standard" was in the ref cited. I'll put the bit bit back which was excised by IRWolfie which explains this. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not a reference, it's OR/SYNTH extracted from primary sources etc and put in ref tags. If the other reference doesn't support the text, what's it doing there? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we would only use academic sources for responses; academic secondary sources are fine for describing Plasma Cosmology. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now noticed the article appears to contain a lot of original research. If you add a reference, it must explicitly support the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But you've always thought that. The standard of referencing in this article is now better than most wiki articles - and usually does support the text, except sometimes things get orphaned when text is deleted. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the referencing is subpar and fails to verify much of the article. Here are some examples:
 * doesn't support the lead, it's primary.
 * It is described as such by advocates and critics alike. In the February 1992 issue of Sky & Telescope ("Plasma Cosmology"), Anthony Peratt describes it as a "nonstandard picture". The open letter at www.cosmologystatement.org – which has been signed by Peratt and Lerner – notes that "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". The ΛCDM model big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard model" or "standard paradigm" of cosmology here, and here. isn't a reference, It's OR from primary sources
 * 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".  More OR as a reference
 * What is this? It appears to be a transcript of a discussion, I'm not sure if it's reliable for anything beyond opinion
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to IRWolfie-'s points above.
 * There is no ban on primary sources and it does support the lead, as the comment you cited next confirms:
 * So the ref to Peratt in Sky & Telescope (1992) does support the lead because it says: [Plasma cosmology is] nonstandard. But you are complaining about this section because it is "OR from primary sources". It is by definition not OR if it is quoting sources, even if they are primary sources.
 * Again, can't be OR if cited in given references.
 * This is published in a journal. It is the transcript of the Q&A at the end of a presentation. It is a better source than blogs.
 * Can't agree with the validity of any of the examples you've cited above. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take it to the appropriate noticeboards to get an outside perspective. There is no ban on primary sources, but they are meant to be used sparingly. Some of your elaborately constructed notes are not references, they are just notes. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why assume that I wrote them? I didn't write any of them. I think they were written by someone citing sources to verify the mainstream view that plasma cosmology is non-mainstream. I think they are reasonable comments and the references are OK. I am open to other points of view on plasma cosmology, despite what you think, e.g. when sticking your oar in on a completely different issue and saying I'm an advocate for plasma cosmology . But I do find it ironic that you object to them. If you do manage to get the references deleted you will then have to find alternative references to establish the mainstream view that plasma cosmology is not mainstream! Good luck. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the mainstream sourcing doesn't exist, the article gets deleted because of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If the mainstream can't be represented it means the sourcing is inadequate and the topic can never be neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you've tagged the article as OR, I also don't understand why you accuse Siggy G of OR and SYNTH. You talk about "if this was fiction it would be described as 'in universe' ", but it isn't fiction - so what is your point? Siggy G is using primary sources to try and explain what plasma cosmology is in the words of people who are plasma cosmologists, and this is allowed in WP:FRINGE. You also state "it's OR/SYNTH extracted from primary sources etc", that's nonsensical - if its extracted from primary sources it can't be either OR or SYNTH. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your responses to the specific points I have raised is that you don't understand what's going on? I've shown some of the OR above, I've addressed the specifics of Siggy's edits above also. Further, self description from primary sources is meant to be very limited. not " using primary sources to try and explain what plasma cosmology is in the words of people who are plasma cosmologists", you are meant to be writing from a neutral point of view, not writing a piece based on how Plasma cosmologists describe their own work. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback IRWolfie, and supporting arguments Aarghdvaark. I think I understand some of the issues, and some of the references (from older edits by others) ought to link to "better" sources. Yet, one is asked for secondary and tertiary sources here at WP, which would be considered less reliable/accurate if you were to write something academic. But I see the point of getting the subject covered (in addition perhaps?) by broader sources. In that case, we may see the riddance of some of the dismissive sections as well. I will look further into the references to back up the descriptions. Better descriptions of the subject are needed than those left standing today. Siggy G (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In academia originality and deductions made from primary sources are expected. On wikipedia we essentially want the opposite, we sum up what is most prevalent in reliable secondary sources; we don't aim to show the cutting edge of research etc. We use secondary sources because they provide an independent viewpoint. If we are inferring things from primary sources etc, then we are doing original research. Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not making deductions. We are describing and attributing a statement of fact. Plasma cosmology claims there was no big bang. This is an accurate and true representation of the plasma cosmology position (even if their position is wrong), and this statement is written neutrally and is not controversial in any way. A primary source is best here verifying the plasma cosmology position. It would be controversial if we claimed that there was actually no big bang, or suggested any veracity of the plasma cosmology position. It is quite right that analysis, interpretation, criticism, evaluatation and "the generally accepted view" requires secondary sources, eg that the big bang is the consensus view. --80.233.133.75 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that changed the lead to "Loose set of non-standard ideas..." I agree with IRWolfie that using primary sources is problematic, particularly in the lead.  The trouble is, there are hardly any secondary sources for PC, because PC is fringe science.  I think if wikipedia is going to have articles about fringe science topics - and I don't have a strong opinion whether or not it should - but if it is, the standards for references probably have to be relaxed a little for such articles.


 * The trouble, though, is that no one seems to agree on what PC is (hence "loose set"). When I edited the article I felt that Alfven had by far the most weight of any of the proponents of this idea.  So I read some of what Alfven wrote about it and tried to make the article reflect that.  What I learned is that Alfven did NOT say much of what people attribute to him in discussions about PC.  It's been a while, but IIRC he did NOT say there was no big bang (he worked on some ideas to try to get rid of it, but he didn't complete them or make strong statements about their validity).  He did NOT say that electromagnetic forces are more important than gravity on large scales (he said they tend to be stronger on ionized particles, which is uncontroversial).  Basically,  found that Alfven's views were often very badly misrepresented by this article and by what people that seem to like PC attribute to him.


 * So statements like "... electric currents within cosmic plasma give rise to the large-scale structure of the universe..." set off alarm bells for me. As for "Some of the main proponents has suggested that pinched electric currents are the mechanism responsible for initiating the gravitational collapse of matter in the plasma state", I'm a professional physicist and have no idea what that sentence means, so it certainly doesn't belong in the lead.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The magnetic field along a current axis causes plasma contraction. There's nothing controversial about that. This force attenuates inversely with the radius, not with the inverse square of it, and is thus more imporant at collecting surrounding plasma than gravity. At closer range, gravity takes over. There is also a ratio between the quantities of the various forces and their effects (gravitational mass, charge gradients and magnetic fields).(Siggy G (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Not having enough sources is a good sign a topic isn't notable. If secondary sources don't give a particular point weight, neither should we (per WP:FRINGE) IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 44 references at this date on this article. That is obviously just a selection of references on the subject. Cold dark matter has 12, the Big bang has more at 97, which is partly due to it being a controversial topic with creationists, a more neutral topic such as the Metric expansion of space has 22 references. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A reference count doesn't mean anything at all. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"plasma universe" definition from secondary sources
Sources that actually give a straight definition of what "Plasma Universe" is:

"Another alternative to the big bang is the plasma universe theory proposed by Hannes Alfven, a Nobel Prize–winning astrophysicist from Sweden. Strong opponents of the big bang theory often jump to the plasma model as their favorite alternative. (...) In the plasma universe theory, there is no definite point in time when the universe was created; it has been around forever, and it started out as a uniform plasma. After trillions - trllions - of yeras, tangled electromagnetic strand began to seed galaxy formation. The plasma universe explains the background radiation as its own energy reemited from interstellar dust, and expansion as the repulsive force when groups of antimatter and matter collide." The Big Bang Theory: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Why It Works p. 133


 * This sounds like (especially the bit about antimatter and matter colliding) what the article calls the "Alfvén-Klein cosmology", which I think everyone agrees is superseded. So it is overloading the term plasma universe = Alfvén-Klein cosmology, as if it wasn't already difficult to pin down.

"In the end, plasmas are so prevalent in astrophysics that Hannes Alfvén (Nobel Laureate 1970) coined the expression Plasma Universe to really express what is dominant. In this sense, it is often said that 99% of the observable universe is in the plasma state. " Waves in Dusty Space Plasmas


 * This is an open-ended definition: the plasma universe = what you can observe.

"Cosmological Controversy. Through much of the twentieth century, two cosmologies - the Steady State model and the Big Bang model vied for general acceptance. (...) In contrast, the Plasma Universe model is a cosmology based on data carried by the entire electromagnetic spectrum. (...) In fact,, there is an alternative cosmological theory, one whose foundings even predate the Friedman Big Bng model by about two decades. That alternative is the Plasma Universe. The Plasma Universe is an entirely different view of the nature and evolution of the universe. (...) Starting from the observed fact that the univrse, stars and all, is 99.999 percent plasma (see "Space Plasmas," March 1988, p. 166], the Plasma Universe is sculpted much more by electrical currents and electromagnetic forces than by gravitation. General relativity with its gravitational linkages is important in the Plasma Universe, but only in the mature stars and galaxies, not in a moment of "birth" as in the Big Bang." [http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/PerattPlasmaCosmology1W%26I.pdf Plasma Cosmology. Part I. Interpretations of the Visible Universe], World & I, Anthony L. Peratt.

"''The presently dominant cosmology postulates gravitational forces and charge-neutral matter as the dominantn components of the universe. Part I (August 1989) reviewed the origin, rise to ascendancy, and present observational challenges to this Big Bang model of the universe. Part II introduces the Plasma Universe model, which postulates electromagnetic forces and electrically charged matter as being the dominant factors in most of the universe. (...) The Plasma Universe model directly contradicts the Big Bang model of the universe and is consistent with a universe that is eternal and infinite. In the Plasma Universe wirling streams of electrons and protons form filaments spanning vast reaches of space (...). Where pairs of filaments interact over hundreds of millions of years, the aprticles gain velocity (...) and at narrow "pinch" regions produce the full range of galaxy types, as well as the full spectrum of cosmic electromagnetic radiation. The filamentary structure is invisible from a distance, just as is the solar wind of charged particles streaming past Earth. (...) The prediction that the universe should have a cellular and filamentary structure is a major difference between the Big Bang and Plasma Universe models. (...) The upstart Plasma Universe model is growing stronger year by year and promises to be a moajor contender in the arena of cosmological discourse for the coming decade.''" Part II


 * These two are obviously not secondary sources. The title of both articles is plasma cosmology, so I think these support the definition plasma universe = plasma cosmology. I don't think these sources talk about matter/antimatter, so this definition of plasma universe is not the same as Alfvén-Klein cosmology.

"Another rival of big bang theory, plasma universe theory, proposes that the universe has been around forever and that it (...) The strongest support for plasma universe theory comes from laboratory experiments using electromagnetic fields," Curious Folks Ask 1 & 2 (Bundle) Pearson Education


 * Published 2010 (unless it is a reprint). Not sure here, depends whether it mentions matter/antimatter

"A more recent alternative to the Big Bang, called the plasma universe theory, is supported by a small minority of astronomers. This theory suggests that the universe has always existed and that its structure is dominated by electricity and (...)" From the Big Bang to Planet X: The 50 Most-asked Questions about the Universe-- and Their Answers


 * This was published in 1993. Again, depends whether it mentions matter/antimatter

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Enric for digging these sources up. I've put my comments underneath the sources. Unfortunately, none of these actually define plasma cosmology, although that is the title of the two articles by Peratt. Ref 4 of this article (cited to support the statement "plasma cosmology is seen as the evolution of the plasma universe") says in the abstract " ... questions of cosmology in the plasma universe", i.e. from that source the plasma universe is not the same as plasma cosmology. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Aarghdvaark. For a topic like this, you're going to need MUCH better sources than a pop-science book and an article in a non-specialist magazine. Agree also that you are mixing apples and oranges a bit. Finding sources further up on the food chain should be your first priority. You're just shooting too low. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But I couldn't find any better sources for this definition! It doesn't seem to appear in encyclopedias of physics and similar stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Astrophysical Plasma - needs fixes!!
A brief scan of this section shows that it contains both the year 1967 and the year 1963 as "the" critical year where extraterrestrial currents were observed. Wow. Somebody, please fix! Also it makes the absurd claim (somebody should be deeply embarrassed) that the theory was "proved". In case there is someone who missed 5th grade science, Science deals with validation, confirmation, consistency but NEVER proof. Awful. I will attempt to change to "confirmed". But if its locked please somebody fix this one also.173.189.76.52 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The cited source confirms the rocket was launched in 1963 which is when the experimental results were obtained, and then the results had to be analysed before being written up in 1967 - nothing very unusual in that. Good call replacing "proved" with "confirmed". Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I revised the para and added citation for 1967 article. Hope it makes sense now. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on sections deleted by IRWolfie ("Astrophysical plasma: First part is a coatrack, second part is a synthesis of sources, some of which don't even mention plasma cosmology" ).
 * This is not a coatrack; as Hannes Alfvén continually emphasised, plasma cosmology is part of a sequence from the lab to the magnetosphere to cosmology (e.g. see the figure in the article). So the section on the Earth's magnetosphere is an integral part of the story of plasma cosmology. The fact that plasma cosmologists got this theory correct whilst the mainstream astrophysical community got it wrong is an interesting and relevant fact in the story of plasma cosmology. Regarding the second point about sources not mentioning plasma cosmology, since plasma cosmologists "won" the scientific argument there is now no need to distinguish between "plasma cosmology astrophysical plasma" and "mainstream astrophysical plasma", hence sources do not need to mention plasma cosmology. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources you are using don't mention plasma cosmology. and this isn't an article about other things Alfvén did; if it does not have direct bearing on plasma cosmology it doesn't belong here. You are trying to coat-rack other topics not related to cosmology so that it seems more mainstream and look like a natural progression. Your material about plasma cosmologists winning the argument is just original research you are synthesising to this topic; the sources don't say it, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Plasma cosmologists" might have the earth's magnetosphere correct, although I doubt it; it's not clear what that would have to do with the article, unless we have mainstream sources which do mention "plasma cosmology" or something which is obiviously the same as "plasma cosmology". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Irony?
The article now says: "In contrast to plasma cosmology, plasma physics is accepted as having influence on many astrophysical phenomena. Much of the matter in the universe is thought to be ionised or exist as plasma, and it is this plasma that can generate magnetic fields." This is classic. Much the same was said about continental drift: in contrast to continental drift, plate tectonics is accepted as describing the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. They are of course much the same thing, as are, per the article, plasma cosmology and plasma physics. Plasma cosmology: "[the] central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas plays important roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar system". Plasma physics: "It is now accepted that plasma physics may be important to many observed astrophysical phenomena and in the processes of star formation, galaxy formation or during the early universe." Does anyone else see the irony? Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. By the way, the initial proposal for continental drift was that the earth was expanding. That was rejected as bullshit, and is still rejected. Do you wish to draw an analogy with plasma cosmology? Continental drift is not a physical theory, it is an observation, plate tectonics is the theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. There is no irony in these statements. What are you implying? Plasma physics and plasma cosmology are not the same, just like astrophysics and cosmology are not the same. They are defined as the understanding physics behind the phenomena, while cosmology is the history and evolution of the universe. Were it just about the origin of the universe, it should be labelled plasma cosmogony. I.e. The Big Bang is actually a cosmogony theory. Plasma cosmology is most discredited as there are no evidence of these magnetic fields (or their strengths) nor of this plasma, and this can only be inferred. In astrophysics and cosmology, the evidence is actually observable, like seeing the redshift of galaxies or the overall structure of galaxies seen through the universe. Moreover, this suggest that the laws of physics are similar to what we observe near Earth, however, we cannot deduce this for plasma at cosmological distances. I.e. it is inferred. Hence the words "may be important." The usage is correct and is therefore not ironic. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alt views
This article should be added to WikiProject Alternative Views.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"the modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or cosmological theory"
Mainstream cosmological theory makes accurate predictions, so failing to match them is an objective basis for rejecting plasma theory. MilesMoney (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the original sentence said "Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match the modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or cosmological theory." Since this is a science topic (albeit fringe science) I thought we should keep to the rules of science, and very briefly I think that means you falsify a theory by any repeatable (and hopefully replicated) observation. So I support all your comments: as above here and in your edit summary . What I thought was straying away from the scientific method was the original statements inclusion of "cosmological theory", so that it could be read: "Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match ... modern ... cosmological theory." To say that one theory is rejected because it does not agree with another theory is not a good reason to reject it. It should not happen in science and if it does it turns that science into a pseudo-science, because although there may be observations which could disprove it - they won't be accepted if there is no theory to underpin them? That was what I was concerned about. Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not match the predictive power of mainstream cosmological theory. MilesMoney (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

'Mostly unknown' doesn't even make sense...
How can a cosmological model be 'mostly unknown'? This simply makes no sense. Regardless of the merits of the word 'rejected', at least it actually tells the readers something. Whereas telling them that the model is 'mostly unknown' is hopelessly vague. Unknown by whom? And what is it that the people that don't know don't know? I suggest that those behind this edit actually consider our readers, who aren't a part of this silly edit war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I agree that these sociological statements don't belong in this article. 'rejected' isn't supported and tells the reader nothing. 'unknown' in this context merely refers to the social standing of the theory, in that "most people do not know about it" Being that there has been no real drive to educate or poll the public on this topic, it is impossible to know. Until a proper poll from a polling organization is conducted I move that both "rejected" and "unknown" be removed completely. As well as the speculation regarding consensus. These are speculatory statements about sociological acceptance and are really irrelevant to educating the reader about Plasma Cosmology. Orrerysky (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I wrote on the current [[WP:DRN]


 * The topic entitled plasma cosmology is placed under Fringe physics and Fringe science.
 * Here the Fringe science article says; "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline."
 * Logically, plasma cosmology to most astronomers and cosmologists is therefore correct in saying "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model,... " I.e. We know plasma cosmology is consider fringe science.
 * Changing the word "Unknown" is incorrect has a completely different implication. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Orrerysky, What the heck do you mean by "I agree that these sociological statements don't belong in this article". I said no such thing - do not put words into my mouth. And no, a statement that a scientific theory is rejected isn't a 'sociological' statement. It is a statement about the assessment of a theory within the relevant scientific field. Scientists are expected to hold opinions about the validity of theories - and it is a major part of their job to concur with or reject such theories. That is what scientist do. If you want to argue that the statement that 'plasma cosmology is mostly rejected' isn't properly sourced, do so - but cut out the irrelevant nonsense about 'sociology'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorrect again Arianewiki1, 'unknown' indicates that most people are not aware of the concept in order to give an opinion. Furthermore, "fringe" is not a statement of acceptance or rejecting. A 'fringe' theory is not a 'rejected' theory. The two terms are completely unrelated despite your efforts to try and somehow weave them together. I require polling data from a Polling Organization. I agree that neither "unknown" nor "rejected" have any place in the article. I propose that until a Polling Organization conducts a scientific survey that the statement regarding 'social status' (rejected, accepted, unknown) be omitted along with Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or accepted cosmological theory. This is a Sociological Argument that must be backed by legitimate Sociological Research and no such research exists to my knowledge and this line of thought is a red-herring that distracts the reader from trying to accomplish their goal of learning about the topic. Orrerysky (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose what you like - that isn't the way Wikipedia works. Contributors don't get to demand new sources - we write articles according to what material we have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no material on the sociological acceptance. Please cite the polling organization you used to derive the statements you are supporting. You based your article on "material" so please cite the material. Orrerysky (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't based 'my article' on anything. It isn't 'my article'. As far as I can recall, I've not edited it except to revert your muddled statement about the theory being 'mostly unknown'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit History
Orrerysky - changed word: "rejected" to "unknown" - no polling organization has performed any kind of sociological analysis to make this conclusion.

Arianewiki1 - reverted 1

Orrerysky - changed word: "rejected" to "unknown" - no polling organization has performed any kind of sociological analysis to make this conclusion. ; Issued a Dispute Resolution ticket

Arianewiki1 - reverted 2

Orrerysky - informed Arianewiki1 of a 3 reversion rule & restored "unknown" until resolution of Dispute Ticket - Polling Organization required.

Orrerysky (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump - didn't like the verbage for unknown

Orrerysky - following AndyTheGrump's request that Unknown verbage could be confusing, removed sociological references.

Arianewiki1 - Reverted 3

Arianewiki1 has abused the Revert option, using it 3 times in a 24 hr period. He has been notified on his talk page. Please take measures to enforce 3xReversion rule. Orrerysky (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, you are interfering with a dispute resolution issue. The question I now have is are you a fair admin or do I need to take this issue to the Arbitration committee? As an Admin, I request that you identify the author of the original phraseology under dispute and provide reasoning as to why "that edit" should override any "future edit" from other individuals. This matter is being escalated to Arbitration committee, standby  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology Edit Warring

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Who were the original editors and on what grounds should their versions should remain in use? in most cases, they are just the biggest bullies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ??? The history of the article tells exactly who made what edits. Look there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bull, have you looked at the posting history of this page? You trolling me? I'm taking it to the Arbitration Committee and I might just skip that and call the President of wikimedia. This page goes back to 2005 and has had 1000s of revisions. You tell me to find out who made a specific edit. You have to be kidding. Who made the edit that said it was "mostly rejected" and why should that edit be default? Who decides? What user makes the edit? Is "ariane" the one who has to put in the edit? He's obviously not interested in it. He is enforcing "someone's" edit. Who's? Why? WHO DECIDES CONSENSUS? Where is the voting booth? Does this page allow edits or doesn't it? Did I make 3 reversions? NO! HE DID! I have been conversing on the topic. Who makes the call? Who decides what the default is? Should we go back to the 2005 entry? He isn't interested in negotiating. Are people allowed to make contributions or only when Ariane agrees? I had 2 other users agree with my edit. In fact, the past few months shows multiple attempts by people to change this article. Who determines the norm? Where is the sociological polling data to support these sociological claims? Answer: They don't exist. Orrerysky (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Orrerysky, you were edit warring and you did violate the three revert rule. You made 6 edits to remove rejected from the lead123456. The content of articles isn't determined by a "customer service department"; it's developed through the consensus of other editors. Right now, you've got multiple editors disagreeing with you. Take a step back, cool down, and start assuming good faith. We all have the same goal here: make the 'pedia better. Calmly explain your position to the others and await input; don't attempt to bludgeon everyone through the process. Lastly, please don't continue to battle on the article itself, or you may wind up blocked.  Ish dar  ian  08:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * dar ian, thank you for your calm demeanor! I am still confused on this process. 'Who' are these other editors. Which 'editors' need to be convinced? What gives 'them' authority over the article and not the 100 others who have attempted to make the same changes I am making? Also, I did not use the "reversion" feature with my edits. I just edited the article again with minor corrections following a short talk with the people. In any case, I see no reason why certain revisions from the past should serve as the 'reversion' point. If someone has an issue, why did they choose to revert to "that copy" where was the "vote"? Is there an "editor voting box" or do 'reverters' just randomly decide? Now, you will also notice that the 'reversions' you claim were actually each different. And no same reversion was made 3 times, and nor was any reversion not explained in both Talk or in edit summary. Again, I thank you for your calm attitude here! I wish this whole process started with you and not with people who seem emotionally worked up and defensive about the issue before I even got here. I would like to change "is most rejected" to "an astrophysical" now that others have said "unknown" might be confusing. This seems to have been the cause for quite a few conflicts in the past, I do not know why we keep defaulting back to it when there is no sociological polling data to support that claim. It appears to be the result of a mis-association wit the word "fringe" as "fringe =! rejected" or "against"  Thanks again! You're great! Orrerysky (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * Here is something important to read: Be_bold -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

——


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


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


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


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


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


 * If it were supported there would be more published astronomical/ cosmological papers on it, but there have been none since the 1990s.


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


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


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


 * [These following words are not mine, being inserted an unsigned comment. "You say "Plasma Cosmology isn't mostly rejected, is there some scientific poll to support that statement? I don't recall getting a poll from Zogby on the matter. When was the scientific poll conducted? A more accurate statement would be mostly unknown. " and "Wrong. It is mostly rejected by astronomers and cosmologists who do not support plasma cosmology." Please always sign your comments, otherwise no one knows who they are talking to or what editors are saying. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)]

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


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


 * Orrerysky, I have mentioned WP:Boomerang to you before. Your statement above about banning Arianewiki1 from editing this article is good enough grounds to get you topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Brang/Bull or whatever you want to call yourself. I find it comical how you people have to fight about this article every week and you somehow think you have a good enough revision that it doesn't require to be changed. Your default article is terrible. You have no reason to enforce the will of members who wish to keep it as-is, even though they have no more authority than any other user to change it. There is no sociological polling data from any polling organization to back up that statement and removing it should be a non-issue. My Sandbox version is infinitely better. No, you are being socially engineered and gamed by people who want to use the 'letter' of the bylaws to defeat the 'spirit of the bylaws' and that makes this entire endeavor suspect. Rules were broken by Arianewiki1, his objections to future edits are null and void. Period. I was never engaged in edit warring and your own study will bear it out. I had '1' reversion with Download. 1, not 3. 1, and even if you count the bot. 2. I followed procedure to the T, discussing it in the talk page. Finding community support. Notifying the changes. Requesting Admin support and guidance. Your cronies are defaulting the page revision and socially engineering in order to mispresent the topic. He has no qualifications to be controlling this topic. Let's just default it back to the 2005 page? This isn't about consensus, negotiating, or having an open wiki. This is about admins being bullied by control freaks. Orrerysky (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Orrerysky, no admins have become involved in this discussion, so I fail to see how you see yourself and your 'desire' for consensus as being infringed upon by the 'control freaks' bullying admins. Have you sought the assistance of an arbiter or mediator in this matter? I see no attempts of this being made publicly.  Additionally, please see WP:NPA, WP:COOL, and WP:PRIDE as your recent entry on the talk page seems like it could use a review of all three.  You want third opinions, I'm happy to give one.  All it takes is asking, and an uninvolved party would be happy to assist.  If you are looking for dispute resolution, see WP:DR first (to gain an understanding of the processes and options available to you) and then go to WP:DRR to file a request.  Frankly, you lose all credibility due to your blatant disregard of Wikiquette.   --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 08:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * --Slazenger Thank you and welcome to our conversation! I am seeking an arbiter or mediator, unfortunately the customer service for this site is terrible. (i guess you get what you pay for and since this site is free the customer service is terrible) Since you say no admins have been involved, I do have individuals claiming to be admins who may be deceptively misleading. We have 1 admin (supposedly) who can not take himself off of a defensive posture after he made an error in judgement and mistook "bot activity" for edit warring and has since been peer-pressured from Ariane (who has latched on to that admin's mistake in order to keep claiming edit warring; despite the fact that HE HIMSELF is the person doign the edit warring with others and now sucking me in to it. Anyways! thanks for your advise! I will continue reading and getting caught up on all these bureaucratic procedures and red tape! Orrerysky (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, let's talk about the "minor changes" you requested (which you obviously weren't serious about). I want to change the phrase / meme "a mostly rejected" to "an astrophysical". This phrase is supported by the facts, the other phrase has no place in science and has no sociological polling data to support it. Orrerysky (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The word "astrophysical" makes even less sense. Saying; "Plasma cosmology an astrophysical non-standard cosmological model." is wrong, because this is under the subject of cosmology not astrophysics. If you read the link to the article non-standard cosmology, you will find a section on plasma cosmology. Here it says;
 * "While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science." and concludes;
 * "However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the popularity of plasma cosmology has since fallen."


 * If you read the entire article, it can be clearly seen why it is agreed plasma cosmology is not supported.


 * If you read under History, it says;
 * "Today, heterodox non-standard cosmologies are generally considered unworthy of consideration by cosmologists while many of the historically significant nonstandard cosmologies are considered to have been falsified. The essentials of the big bang theory have been confirmed by a wide range of complementary and detailed observations, and no non-standard cosmologies have reproduced the range of successes of the big bang model. Speculations about alternatives are not normally part of research or pedagogical discussions, except as object lessons or for their historical importance. An open letter started by some remaining advocates of non-standard cosmology has affirmed that: "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies…."


 * [This is from "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" at http://www.cosmologystatement.org/, which appear in New Scientist in May 22, 2004. (This is your POLLING ORGANISATION, BTW)]


 * Hence, even from those who support various alternative cosmologies, and accept the general "rejection" of plasma cosmology (and others) against the Big Bang. Plasma cosmology maybe right or wrong, but among astronomers or cosmologist today, it is "mostly rejected." Therefore this statement about plasma cosmology is factual and irrefutable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no supporting evidence from ANY POLLING ORGANIZATION to support your claim. A few scientists getting together to put out a statement, is not a counter statement of rejection. "fringe" =! "reject" or "accept" nor are these matters necessary. These are memes that you are attempting to enforce in order to create a 'false consensus' which does not exist. You have no polling data. No sociological research has been done on this matter and you insist on making unfounded sociological assertions. If "Eric Lerner" is biased on this topic because he is related to the field, than as a self-proclaimed "astronomer" one could make the claim that you are subject to the exact same bias. Support for one model does not equate to rejection for another model. Furthermore, you have no even yet made the case that Big Bang is not a model of the Plasma Cosmology umbrella, in that Big Bang theorists rely on observations of Space Plasma (plasma cosmology) and theorize that such observations allow them to make determinations on age, history, and extent. You are using false word associations to confuse the readers. Orrerysky (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide the necessary polling data to support your assertion that plasma cosmology is "astrophysics". And the necessary polling data to support the assertion that the supporters of plasma cosmology are "scientists". So far you have provided no supporting evidence from ANY POLLING ORGANIZATION to support your claims, and we mustn't confuse the readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology"
It is interesting that the arrival of Orrerysky correspond with a new arXiv article on the Tuesday 26th e entitled "Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology" by Mart ́ın Lo ́pez-Corredoira http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.6324 This paper is to appear in the obscure Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (Studies in Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys.) This paper clearly shows views on alternative models, with the language and style, including the central tenants of Orrerysky are very similar. For example, In this he says pg.14;


 * "In my opinion, alternative models are not rejected because they are not potentially competitive but because they have great difficulties in advancing in their research against the mainstream. A small number of scientists cannot compete with the huge mass of cosmologists dedicated to polishing and refining the standard theory. The present-day methodology of research in cosmology does not favour the exploration of new ideas. The standard theory in cosmology became dominant because it could explain more phenomena than the alternative ideas, but it is possible that partial successes have propitiated the compromise with a general view that is misguided and does not let other ideas advance that might be closer to a more correct description of the Universe."

More disturbing is the use and explanation of the word "sociological", similarly used by Orrerysky too. (Worst, the author here confirms that the standard theory is dominate, clearly showing that "mostly rejected" view presented in the main article by me is correct!)

The weaknesses of plasma cosmology is clearly shown Section 2.2 on pg.7-8. I.e. "The Universe has always existed, it is always evolving, and it will continue to exist forever." Another is "In more recent times, some proposers of plasma cosmology have stated that there is no expansion, the Universe is static, and that the redshift of the galaxies would be explained by some kind of tired light effect of the interaction of photons with electrons in the plasma." A third (originally this was given by Bostick) is; "The formation of galaxies and their dynamics would also be governed by forces and interactions of electromagnetic fields.", etc.

These views are not supported by standard model, and are rejected by astronomers and cosmologists. Current evidence for the Big Bang is contrary for these views. I suspect this User is the same as the author, which suggests the significant re-edits here are motivated by the paper.

It is also interesting that the author says in the footnotes;

"Paper accepted for publication in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (SPHMP) for the special issue on “Philosophy of Cosmology” (2014). Sentences in italics [apart from the titles of books or journals or titles of subsections, which are always in italics] are published only in this arXiv.org version and they have been removed or substituted in the version of the journal SPHMP, since the editors and referees of this paper asked me to do this in order to the article be accepted in the journal. Here, I keep some of the original sentences and paragraphs because I prefer this version rather than the filtered one."

I suspect the author / user is promoting in this Plasma cosmology article his own research. Such self-promotion is also clearly against the policies of Wikipedia.Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I should add that the seeming 'attitude' of Orrerysky's views towards modifying this plasma cosmology page follow Footnote 11 pg.24. "


 * "4) Stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too deviant to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter risky attempts made at defeating their purposes"


 * "8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions"


 * Behaviours of this individual suggest the latest actions are deliberate. I leave others to interpret the veracity of many of these recent edits. At least it sets the mindset of those proponents to support plasma cosmology and their efforts to affect the statements on this topic page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not read the arXiv article and I don't attribute it to Orrerysky. However, the argument Arianewiki1 attributes to Orrerysky, but wishes to demolish, has some merit. For instance, it currently says in the article "Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory." I have tried to rewrite this as "Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena." but have been reverted consistently. I have asked for references to support the current statement, but have been refused . To reject a theory because it does not match another theory is unscientific. Why I asked for sources for the current statement is that no scientist worth their salt would consider saying that "plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match ... accepted cosmological theory". So the current wording is OR and I suspect is unsupported by any references because it is OR. This type of sloppy wording and thinking could be used to demonstrate that there is a conspiracy on Wikipedia against non mainstream science, along the lines of: alternative scientific theories are rejected by Wikipedia because by definition they do not conform to the mainstream scientific theory. So please be more careful when defending the mainstream. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer Aarghdvaark's question and the broader issues here, I have looked in far more detail is the use to accurately support ; "…a most rejected" theory and the various objections here.

It is important to understand that the explanation of why the current model of the cosmology supporting Big Bang compared to the cosmology of Plasma cosmology. Judging the relative importance of this can be understood from the reliable NASA website at http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html Here it clearly states that;


 * "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky."

It carefully explains the word "theory" as; http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html#Theory


 * "Theory : A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."

Again on the original page, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html, that;


 * "The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself. "

Few would disagree with this, especially qualified astronomers or qualified cosmologists, and even those opposing this theory, rightly say; (I.e. http://www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html ) ;


 * "Although The BBT (Big Bang Theory) can claim to be the dominant cosmology just now,…. "

This is directly supported by evidence of http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html;


 * "The expansion of the universe, as found by Edwin Hubble's observations in 1929, made on the acceleration of red shifts of observed galaxies, The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the abundance of the light elements H, He, Li "

Plasma cosmology, as referred, refutes all of these as either insignificant or wrong.


 * Note: Supporters of plasma cosmology mostly rejects basic scientific fundamentals of; general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., but also the astrophysical ideas of black holes and the nebular formation process. Together these are the underpinning of the the so-called "standard model."

Reasons supporting the statement "mostly rejected", is because for plasma cosmology to be considered mainstream, it has to overcome explaining these observed parameter AS WELL AS, the astrophysical objects existing in the universe. (This explains why the introductory statement also correctly says; "Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."

There is a slight possibility the plasma might be correct, but this all importantly hinges on all these other underpinning disciplines, physics, astrophysical phenomena, and cosmology being wrong.

So the words "is a mostly rejected theory…" is based on the balance of support for the many unfounded or ideas associated with plasma cosmology against the vastly overwhelming evidence under pinning the; 1) Big Bang Model or 'Standard Model' 2) General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc.; and 3) Astrophysical models and observations I.e. like black holes, galaxy or star formation, stellar evolution, nuclear fusion, redshifts, microwave background, and element abundances, etc.

As with any theory, as from the NASA reference given above; "A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."

For this very reason, plasma cosmology is not at all accepted by astronomers or astrophysicists. Presently, there is little evidence to overturn the 'standard model.' The weight underpinning the 'standard model' for it to be change significantly, especially in considering the known state of general physics, its current support is unlikely to change in the near future.

The question here for this article is how relevant is plasma cosmology compared to the current mainstream views of cosmology?

The words "most rejected" is correct. The main question is dispute is "the degree of acceptance", in which a neural reader can assess the importance of the topic without being subjected to unintentional or deliberate bias.

Suggestions for theories can range between the absolutes of rejected or accepted, or express as degrees of acceptance. I.e. rejected', mostly rejected, uncertain, mostly accepted, or accepted''. Upon the available evidence, and as a compromise to the wide-range views of others in this topic, I'd see mostly rejected as reasonable.

As the evidence given above shows, even the proponents of plasma cosmology already accept "Although The BBT (Big Bang Theory) can claim to be the dominant cosmology just now,…." (stated above) and my earlier quotes agree with this.

This easily explains and supports the current wording of the document, as well as the various good faith points made by User:Aaghdvaark.

It also immediately shows why User:Orrerysky wants the words most rejected removed, is because it rightly places his own position among those with a minority view as instead being somehow equivalent. My expressed evidence for this is from the proponents for and against plasma cosmology, as well as the current accepted positions on a range of theory and observations. It shows the apparent truth of these given assertions.


 * Comment: Q: Theoretically, for example is the ancient believe in Flat Earth (which is a kind of cosmology in itself.) How plausible and accepted is this theory? Does a poll need to exist to assert it is correct or wrong, when the overwhelming evidence is accepted that as an theory it has been rejected?


 * Like most things, there is a probability of some theory being wrong. Just because one observation contradicts this, doesn't mean the 99.9% of the whole theory should be tossed out. Mostly, it means the theory has to be refined. If the evidence of repeatable observations were, say against more than 50%, the the whole theory would be rightly questioned and reject.


 * It seems many supporters of alternative science (and a few supporters of plasma cosmology, IMO) often fail to grasp the significance of some new observation, and often instantly declare one small aspect as meaning the whole theory must be completely wrong. Worst there is a tendency to even wish to destroy the underpinning physics as well. Blinkering theories to ideals of zealots with their faith-like devotion is becoming a major problem in science, and even those who are well versed in science are oddly also vulnerable to it. The value of our knowledge into astronomy/ astrophysics, and especially towards cosmology, are greatly diminished by such devotions rather than the rationality of it all.


 * IMO, these apparent wild attacks appearing on Wikipedia article like plasma cosmology here, are in fact commonplace elsewhere, whose motivations are mostly deliberately unstated or hidden. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Arianewiki. You haven't addressed at all my specific concern above that the criticism against plasma cosmology, as expressed in this article, is unscientific and OR.
 * I am also concerned by your statement above that: "Supporters of plasma cosmology mostly rejects basic scientific fundamentals of; general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., but also the astrophysical ideas of black holes and the nebular formation process." Because
 * As far as I know no plasma cosmologist has denied general relativity or quantum mechanics? Don't confuse general relativity with the big bang theory. Although the big bang theory assumes general relativity, general relativity is independent of the big bang theory - i.e. hypothetically the big bang theory could be ditched tomorrow and it would have zero implications for general relativity.
 * There is a plasma cosmology theory to explain the incredible emissions we see from Active galactic nucleus. The idea has been edited down in the article to the rump statement: "At the same time Eric Lerner, an independent plasma researcher and supporter of Peratt's ideas, proposed a plasma model for then still-mysterious (sic) phenomenon of quasars based on a dense plasma focus". However, that doesn't mean that black holes and plasma cosmology are mutually exclusive. BTW note the inclusion of the term "independent" - which is included to try and downplay his credentials, and also note the inclusion of the phrase "then still-mysterious phenomenon" - which is included to try and make the reader assume the standard model has an answer to this (although the cause has been assigned to black holes, there is currently no generally accepted mechanism to explain how a black hole could cause these emissions, and so the phenomenon is even now "still-mysterious").
 * Regarding the nebular formation process, a hypothesis of Alfven's briefly mentioned in the article is that nebula collapse could be initiated or helped by magnetic fields. But there you go again, because plasma cosmology has a hypothesis which is not the same as the current hypothesis, on your circular reasoning, ipso facto, plasma cosmologists must be wrong. But this is utterly incorrect reasoning. You even quoted in your argument above the NASA definition of a theory, but you do not seem to grasp what it says: " A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory." The definition says nothing about a theory being overturned if it contradicts another theory, even a standard model?


 * I am not overly concerned with the "degree of acceptance", although considering the current statement you are agonizing over: "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model" I find
 * its reasoning is circular (i.e. if something is non-standard it is by definition "mostly rejected").
 * by including the unnecessary but loaded terminology "mostly rejected" I think you do need to say by whom it is rejected.
 * My preference would be "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmological model which is supported by few currently active researchers", although you could substitute cosmologists.
 * I think I've done enough here to establish that the article as it stands is unscientific in its criticism of plasma cosmology, and that in trying to downplay plasma cosmology the article demonstrates a POV bias against plasma cosmology. Please reflect on your own words: "faith-like devotion". Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Compromise Suggestion
I would like to suggest that the controversial words "...a mostly rejected" be changed to "'a poorly accepted"

This would change the negative connotations to a positive connotation, and is still accurate.

Here implications of the position is clearly acknowledged by both supporters and detractors of plasma cosmology.

Comments please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an accurate description. I might propose a minority accepted but recognize poorly accepted as an acceptable compromise unless you find minority accepted to be better. Orrerysky (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence being considered is "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model". All these proposals are tautologies, since if a model is non-standard it is by definition: "mostly rejected", etc. The phrase "poorly accepted" is incorrect usage of English, it should be "little accepted" ("poorly accepted" means that something was accepted in bad grace and reflects badly on those accepting, it is agnostic on what is being offered). My preference would be for: "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmological model which is supported by few currently active researchers". Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In my investigation of this page, I've found several related pages with similar problems as this one. I.e. Non-standard cosmology. It says;


 * "While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.", and is linked to;


 * If we end up agreeing with the words "poorly / little accepted" or Aarghdvaark (probably better) "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmological model which is supported by few currently active researchers" should we also add this as a supportive reference? Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an important point to bring into this might be a sort scale of acceptance, allow us for a moment to consider the following table -


 * In my past discussions on these kind of scale of acceptance issues I might draw a comparison to discussions between atheists, agnostics, & theists. Let us consider the action "to reject". This is often referred to as "strong atheism". The debate comes in as to whether or not an 'inanimate object' is a 'strong atheist' or a 'weak atheist' in that even though the rock can not be said "to accept" it is asserted that it has "no belief" and even though it does not "reject" per se, it might be considered a "weak atheist" We must also consider another case: "to be apathetic" is not the same as "to reject". I find that Aarghdvaark & Arianewiki1's compromises are both good and should be implemented. (aard's verbage & ariane's references. Also, I will be adding another talk point. Keep an eye out for it. Orrerysky (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite strongly disagree with replacing "mostly rejected" with "poorly accepted". In fact, I would prefer "almost entirely rejected". MOND is a "poorly accepted" non-standard theory. Plasma Cosmology has, what, two currently living physicists who have published peer reviewed articles about it? It has zero support in the astronomical and cosmological research communities. It is a perfect example of WP:FRINGE, and that fact must be made clear, per Wikipedia policy. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Parejkoj, unfortunately no polling organization has conducted a poll to support your opinion on that level on a scale of acceptance. When discussing the verbage for the encyclopedia we should be careful to make a distinction between rejected and apathy or indifference. "To Reject" is a very specific verb indicating an action or decision. Apathy, indifference, or distracted to pursue other models is not the same as rejected. To Reject is sociological behavior and as previously mentioned, there is no polling organization to corroborate that opinion. Orrerysky (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Parejkoj, the main problem is that this article needs some measure of acceptance that "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", which the minority doesn't like. This is directly stated in WP:YESPOV policy (which Orrreysky needs to read too.) As pointed out on this same linked page, a poll is completely unnecessary in Wikipedia. It only needs to be verifiable by simple evidence. As said, the statement like; "Paris is the capital of France" does not need a poll of any sort to be verified as true. What cheeses me off is that even when main supporters of plasma cosmology openly bemoan the fact they are in such a ignored minority (as exampled by me in an earlier post immediately above), but then complain so bitterly when contrary views with evidence are voiced. The long miserable history of this entire article is the political motivations to air the minority view in the hope someone listens. It seems what is true or known is much less important than sticking to the dogma. What is actually hoped for is in fact making apathy or indifference, so the general distortions can be aired and accepted. In the end it is not science, it is a really about a wicked popularity contest. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Other Motivations in Changing Article on Plasma Cosmology
I have found a direct example of the editing of this page might be related to some groups of the plasma cosmology supporters like those in "The Thunderbolt's Project" http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/09/10/eu2014-home-page/ and there conference "Electric Universe : All About the Evidence" to be held between 20-24 March 2014. Motivations of pages like this one are vulnerable to promotion of their goals, and attempts to complete represent their views by modifying or even replacing Article to support their views. Some apparently have utter distain for Wikipedia and the article creation/maintaing process. I.e. "The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia " by H.C. Baeur http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm


 * It is equally worrying that, this group http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/get-involved/ they say;


 * "In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer."

As such, with people like User:Orrerysky, we have no means of knowing the influence of plasma cosmology supporters on this page. When such people infer that an army will decent here, as already alleged by this same user, you have to already question the objectivity and balance of this article. Evidence so far suggests there is a bigger problem that the casual User is unaware.

IMO, importantly that neutrality for this article should be the ultimate goal, and be vigilant for those willing to use it for promotion. (Perhaps this page should be permanently locked.)


 * I leave this as comment on the issue with this and other related articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not at all surprised that proponents of fringe theories are unhappy with Wikipedia, and nor am I particularly surprised that they tend to keep any coordination covert. This isn't new, and I see no reason why we should be unduly worried. Groups like this have been pulling similar stunts for years, to little effect, and we already have the mechanisms in place to deal with them. As for 'permanently locking' the page, that would be contrary to Wikipedia norms, and hard to justify. On the whole, coordinated efforts to spin articles such as these tend to peter out after a few months when those involved discover that they aren't just taking on the few people that regularly edit an article, but the wider Wikipedia community in general, which tends to take a dim view of such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now noticed that Orrerysky has now moved on to the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology, which has some similar contentions as the article. This mentions a theory of an alternative explanation of redshifts, but reading it finds bias and unbalanced article. It mentions the mechanism for its theory, but does not conveniently mention either the so-called Wolf effect] or the astrophysical rejection of the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology. They users contacted Expert Opinion, which appears on the Talk:Wolf_effect page, which clearly states;


 * "The physics is completely accepted and believed, and several people have constructed sources in the laboratory that exhibit the Wolf effect. The question is however if sources with just the right properties that would lead to a red-shift exist in nature. So I do not think that anyone who worked in this area would actually suggest that the cosmological redshifts that we observe are due to the Wolf-effect and not due to an expanding universe."


 * Yet in this plasma cosmology article these redshifts are no written at all. (Should this be added?)


 * Q. Is WP:ARBPS also applied to Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page as well? Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and Orrerysky has received a notification/warning from sysop Doug Weller. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Indeed, and you should refrain from making such threats. Please provide evidence to support any of your claims:


 * 1) Cosmology is a study of origin, and not the cosmos.
 * 2) Sociological & Anthropological Studies on the cosmological views of the public including questionairres regarding the acceptability of the study of astrophysical plasma.
 * 3) That the universe has been proven 'finite'
 * 4) That Winston H. Bostick's experiments simulating the formation of Galaxies isn't cosmology related.
 * 5) That you aren't camping this article to push a biased agenda in order to suppress and discourage development of a legitimate scientific field of research. Orrerysky (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to make this comment, since a half-dozen subsections appeared on this talk page in the last two days. This is as good a place as any. Plasma Cosmology is not a "legitimate scientific field of research", as has been pointed out repeatedly above. There is zero active research in this field at present, and what research was done in the past has been either discredited or shown to not match observations. Orrerysky: you seem to be more interested in a WP:WAR than in constructive edits, and you are ignoring the fact that Plasma Cosmology is a WP:FRINGE topic. No poll of cosmologists is needed: the citation record speaks for itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This statement is inaccurate as there are many researchers actively engaged in this topic. Orrerysky (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then please provide WP:RELIABLE sources to that effect. The sandbox page that you are working on certainly doesn't show any peer reviewed articles on Plasma Cosmology from the last 20 years or so. Note that articles discussing plasmas in space (e.g. Kronberg et al.), other non-standard cosmologies (e.g. Arp), or self-published books and webpages are either not relevant, or not reliable sources in this context. You seem to want to include anything related to plasma, or any non-standard cosmology under the heading of Plasma Cosmology. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. However, they are NOT qualified astronomers or cosmologists.Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure they are, though I can see how some biased individuals only confer qualification upon those that conform to the dogma of other models. Orrerysky (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Redshift
I propose that the article Plasma-Redshift Cosmology be merged here. It is a newly created article, mostly by an editor who has been unable to get his views expressed here, and it is a WP:POVFORK of something that should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Merge", in this context, means Redirect and discuss potential additions. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I must be forced to disagree. Although there may perhaps be a reason to provide a link for Plasma-Redshift Cosmology on the Plasma cosmology page as an example for different models of Plasma Cosmology, Plasma-Redshift is a very distinct theory with a very specific mechanism of operation. As an example for why such a move would be fallacious, let us consider the differences between varying Big Bang models and the fact that they have their own pages to describe them. I see no difference here. Orrerysky (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your selection of the name (it's not called that in the real world) suggests a connection. Whether it's an identity is another matter.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merging of the article, but it should be into the already existing Wolf effect, which is the article that is based on this effect. Furthermore, it is not under the true definition of the original version that is plasma cosmology.


 * Also there are also other significant problems, because, like plasma cosmology, the so-called Wolf effect is another unmentioned subject by supporters of plasma cosmology, which is likely because it rejected by astronomers and cosmologists on preexisting grounds. (See my comment Talk:Plasma-Redshift Cosmology Worst, the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page is already edging on WP:OR, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. Worst if fails because it does not "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." as directly stated in WP:YESPOV You are also quite right to point out WP:STRUCTURE.


 * No. The section Plasma-Redshift Cosmology should put under the pre-existing Wolf effect, which incidentally is mention and linked to Scattering. The History of Redshift Cosmology section should really be placed under the topic Redshift.


 * There should be concern this only being done to building the case for this Plasma cosmology page by stealth, by nailing each of these alternative theories as validation of this one. Is this also just avoiding this individual's current one per day edit ban on plasma cosmology? Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems flawed in that the Plasma Redshift Effect isn't really similar to the Wolf Effect and that seems to be a misinterpretation of Plasma Redshift. Plasma Redshift =! Wolf Effect, in fact they're not even remotely similar. Orrerysky (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please provide the necessary polling data to support your assertion that Plasma Redshift Effect is not the Wolf Effect. And the necessary polling data to support the assertion that "misinterpretation of Plasma Redshift "are "not even remotely similar". So far you have provided no supporting evidence from ANY POLLING ORGANIZATION to support your claims, and we mustn't confuse the readers.. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Merge due to lack of reliable sources. Perhaps when the mainstream scientific literature has thoroughly debunked Plasma-Redshift Cosmology, we'll be able to support an article along the lines of Moon landing conspiracy theories. Of course, there's the chance that mainstream science will come to accept this theory, in which case all books and Wikipedia articles on physics get to be rewritten. I'll believe it when I see it. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, just because they both have Plasma in the name doesn't mean they are the same. Plasma-Redshift Cosmology should have its own page. Quantum Cosmology would be an equally accurate description. Orrerysky (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Woodroar is correct. Merge it or IMO, delete it.
 * As for Orreysky's point, "An outgrowth of Quantum Mechanics, Plasma-Redshift Cosmology is an orthodox interpretation of Plasma Cosmology…" on the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page. Well if so, that both statement is clearly conflicting, because it cannot be both.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sensing some Negative Point of View bias. In any case, in addressing the 'clearly conflicting' point. I don't see how, an orthodox quantum mechanical interpretation of plasma cosmology from world-renowned experts in the field of quantum physics & radiology. This is self-evident from the Ari Brynjolfsson page. This conversation more appropriately belongs on the Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page. Its derivation is derived quantum mechanically from Bohr & Fermi and not from Alfven's work which is what the Plasma cosmology page is about. Orrerysky (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "I'm sensing some Negative Point of View bias." Wow. Good point. Q. Could it be more like your own POV, instead? What has "the field of quantum physics & radiology" have to do astronomy and cosmology? There are so many degrees of freedom between them, that the connection is quite implausible! Seriously. How is this "self-evident"? Please, connect the dots or Plasma-Redshift Cosmology page will be fragmented or completely gone. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Merge. This is a clear POVFORK. The alternative is to delete it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the event that there is something there and it should not be deleted, it should be renamed (without redirect) to something without "Plasma". If there were anything there, it would either be a POVFORK or something completely different and not called "plasma".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No merger is possible for the reasons already given. Also, WP:Systemic bias I find it humorous that your own POVs are beyond reproach. In any case, I must get back to my more lengthy rebuttals to the other talk points. I will get to all of them in turn. I realize you folk are desperate to quickly silence different orthodox models but you will just have to wait. Orrerysky (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A general reminder that saying "I realize you folk are desperate to quickly silence different orthodox models…" is unacceptable WP:GF. Please support this unfounded statement or further actions will be self-evident. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the Merge template as Plasma-Redshift Cosmology has just been deleted. If anyone would like to recreate it as a redirect, it looks like that may be the consensus. Woodroar (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Objection
I would mention as a heads-up that user QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV aka ScienceApologist has done numerous edits the last months and is strongly biased against the subject. He has a history of contaminating articles of various authors of non-standard yet scientific models. Perhaps his edits in this article should be revisited. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV/Previous_Accounts (Siggy G (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)).

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


 * See the warnings and instructions on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that such professionals would not be reliable sources if they exist, as this is a fringe topic. It may be that some such professionals do not consider parts of this article as being "plasma cosmology", but all of it is reported by reliable sources as being "plasma cosmology".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I support Orrerysky. It would be best to change from "mostly rejected" to "mostly unknown". Wavyinfinity —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the available data I believe that Orrerysky is right to say it should say "mostly unknown" as opposed to "mostly rejected".Keyriced (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating the exact same error as the statement mostly rejected is the paragraph
 * Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or accepted cosmological theory.


 * This paragraph should also be removed as there is no sociological or anthropological polling data of scientists to back-up this statement. Plasma Cosmology & other models are not mutually exclusive. Plasma Cosmology is the study of astrophysical plasma. One could easily say that other models fall under the category of Plasma Cosmology, as other models theorize that they can derive the nature of the Universe from the study of radiation emitted from cosmic plasma. Example, examining radiation from cosmic plasma, Inflation Theorists believe that they can calculate the age of the universe. this very simple fact implies that the Inflation Theory can actually be considered a Plasma Cosmology model. Other models under the Plasma Cosmology umbrella make no such calculations, and fringe models believe that they are capable of proving that the Universe is recreated every second. However, each of these models deal with the study of astrophysical plasmas and what they reveal about the cosmological structure of the universe. The current wording in the current article is irrelevant, inaccurate, and unsupported by scientific sociological studies. Supporting the existing wording in the article is irrational. Orrerysky (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While it is good to be passionate with topics of knowledge, I do caution you with your current actions. I'd suggest you heed the wisdom of other Users here, because your current aggressiveness will likely get you into far more trouble. Consensus will certainly get you more support.


 * As to your suggestion; "...the Inflation Theory can actually be considered a Plasma Cosmology model" is plainly divisive and quite wrong. (This statement is clearly your opinion, and has no real citation or reference to support it. Clearly no astronomer or cosmologist would agree with such a unfounded statement.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to suggest that the idea of a particular model falling under the Cosmological Study of Astrophysical Plasma is somehow divisive. Do you have any evidence to support this sociological claim? A paper in a respectable sociological Journal perhaps? Do you disagree that theorists of various models do not study radiation from cosmic plasma in order to theorize about the age of the universe? Do you propose now that such theorists do not study cosmic plasma in order to determine various characteristic of the cosmos, including those who attempt to study such phenomenon in order to try and determine size & age? Orrerysky (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cosmic plasma"? So what is the definition of "cosmic plasma"? Is it the same as "Astrophysical plasma"? Your using terms to trick people to think plasma cosmology is more important than it is current held in cosmology. Plasma cosmology is clearly 'fringe" science because marginally important and is against accept theory.
 * Also your statement is plainly divisive because "Inflation Theory" is quite unrelated to "Plasma Cosmology." I.e. The article Inflation (cosmology) doesn't even mention the word plasma or plasma cosmology! Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no linguistic support in any language or dictionary to imply that "fringe" = "against". Example, the development of the "Clock of the Long Now" is fringe, but that does not imply that it is opposed to some "Clock of the Short Now", The music of Lady Gaga is "fringe" that does not mean it is "against Elvis". You insist on mangling the English language to advance a very suspect ulterior motive in order to mislead people about a field of scientific inquiry. Fringe =! reject, Fringe =! against. You are inventing these associations, quite wrongly I might add. Also, cosmic plasma is "plasma located in space" and is interchangeable with "astrophysical plasma. I suggest you calm down as your edit history over the past several months reveals that you should refrain from posting on this topic.Orrerysky (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if Inflation Theorists believe they can use observations from Plasma to calculate the age or structure of the Universe, then they most definitely are engaging in Plasma Cosmology. Open your eyes, you are blinded by your own inherit biases and need to leave this page to others. Remove the plank from your own eye and whatnot. This is a community site, on a community page. If I need to get a 1000 friends in here from a few facebook groups then I'll be more than happy to build the army. (in a respectful way that complies with the rules of course) Orrerysky (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Orrerysky. It seems alternative articles, even though they are sourced, have been repeatedly edited with unsupportable statements such as "mostly rejected". I have edited the article to make it more neutral. Wavyinfinity  —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I approve of Wavyinfinity's compromise, there is no need for any adjectives and they don't enhance the reader's experience. Orrerysky (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Alt
I added WikiProject Alternative Views. (B-class, Mid Importance.) Anyone object?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected until 23:46, 26 February 2014
For general orientation, I note that semi-protection is in place. Here is the edit summary:


 * "(Protected Plasma cosmology: Apparent violations of WP:SOCK or offsite coordination. This article is under WP:ARBPS ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 23:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 23:46,)"

Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Removed Talk section
What happened to the previous Talk section, that e.g. contained a complaint about strongly biased and previosuly banned Joshua Shroeder having edited this topic (the main page)? Also please be adviced that the Archive lacks a section from Dec 2013 up to now (May 2014). A significant period. Siggy G (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're looking for Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 3, where there are 2 threads specifically about User:Joshuaschroeder. Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 11 includes material as recent as February 2014, so I changed the header at the top of the page. It's slightly misleading, as Current Talk page content belongs here on this page, but a header of "May 2012–Roughly 1 month ago" is a tad cumbersome. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * CMBR was not originally a component of BBT, it was claimed as such only after it's discovery in 1964. Sir Arthur Eddington had already calculated the ambient temperature of starlight 40 years earlier, in 1924, at 2.7 Kelvin, which was precisely correct. CMBR is as much evidence for BBT as it is for Plasma Cosmology, a fact which does not quite get through the heads of cheerleaders for BBT.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Hardbound Book-reading is presently in serious danger of being superceded by internet searches (more dangerously - primarily on Google). George Gamow's prediction of 5 - 50 Kelvin is there for anyone to read in Gamow's original publication.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You will find that, even in 2014, the vast majority of research work (in scientific journals or otherwise) is not published on the internet, and for good reason.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * This is not a forum. Take your ridiculous conspiracy theories elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed Wiki is not a forum; Why then are you treating it as such? The Talk Page is being treated exactly as a Forum, by the very individuals who insist that it is not a forum.

Additionally - Authority over individuals other than oneself exists only in the imagination.


 * You're bias motivated page blanking reverts have been reported on Dispute resolution noticeboard


 * This issue will now be resolved through dispute resolution. Suggest you review Wiki policy with regard to contributions made by experts on the subject which are sourced and cited.217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 217.208.*, I am afraid that you are overestimating the importance of Plasma cosmology. Cosmologists have abandoned this theory simply because the big bang theory explains things better. There is no conspiracy to discredit plasma cosmology.

QUOTE: "The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo." - Hannes Alfvén217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll just quote this: "[pages 40-41] in the mid-1960s (...) The hot big bang relativistic theory became the paradigm of cosmology, and alternative interpretations were marginalized. (...) In spite of the paradigmatic status of the standard big bang model, alternative views remained popular among a minority of cosmologists. (...) Another alternative, worked out by Swedish physicists Oskar Klein and Hannes Alfvén in 1962, assumed the existence of entire galaxies made up of antimatter. These and other alternative theories turned out not to be serious competitors to mainstream big bang theory, and were either abandoned or marginalized. The most fruitful and interesting developments in cosmology since the late 1960s have taken place since within the standard model, inspired by problems generated from within the paradigm. (...) This and other problems have recently caused some cosmologists to declare the big bang theory in a state of crisis. However, since no plausible alternative exists, the almost universal belief in the big bang model has not been seriously shattered. [page 467] The background radiation is a natural and predictable consequence of the canonical big bang model. (...) Alfvén (1966, 1990) and Klein have for decades opposed the canonical big bang model. (...) Alfvén and his associates have published a number of qualitative discussions of the importance of plasma phenomena in organizing the structure of the universe and in explaining those characteristics of the observable universe that are dealt with by the canonical big bang model. There can be no doubt that much of the material in the universe is in a plasma state, but thus far the plasma model has not been fruitful in producing quantitative explanations or predictions of such characteristics." --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional note. The IP says that their source talks about "Gas", and "Gas is Plasma". But the source talks about "Interstellar and Intergalactic gases" and "the average density D (atom/m3) of gas in space" and "Assuming that hydrogen is uniformly distributed in space". It says nothing about the gas being in plasma state or in other state. Hint: gas is usually in gaseous state, that's why it's called gas. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are building a strawman. A strawman being an argument based upon a misunderstanding or non-understanding of a principile, typically by a dilettante, rather than an expert in the field. No offence is intended with this statement, many well intentioned and intelligent people have inadvertantly built strawmen. Paul Marmet's paper on non-Doppler redshift was a proof which opened the floodgates to further research, culminating in Plasma Induced Redshift.


 * Regrettably, this article has become more a source of disinformation than information on the topic of Plasma Cosmology, the article is clearly biased towards the standard paradigm, and has degenerated into a soapbox; The article should therefore be a candidate for deletion.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't censor content because proponents of fringe theories don't like the way we accurately reflect the level of scientific acceptance of the theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not censor content, biased individuals censor content, each according to their own agenda.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ensuring that Wikipedia content conforms with policies and guidelines arrived at through consensus after discussions involving thousands of contributors is not 'bias'. And if you wish to promote plasma cosmology, we aren't stopping you - but we are under no obligation whatsoever to permit you to do so here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Consensus is a group decision-making process which seeks the consent of all participants. Given that consent of all participants is impossibile in topics of contention with unyealding divisions, there can be no consensus, unless all those opposing a view point 'cease to exist'. The probability that any "proponents" of plasma theory seek promotion on Wikipedia is virtually null, within the prevaling atmosphere of open hostility. Moreover, those of whome are actively engaged in acredited research in QMHD are neither 'proponents' nor promoters of a theory, but objective research scientists in pursuit of empirical truth, which is the only real goal of true science. Those who fear the truth have another agenda altogether; this being a primary criterion of bias.  In this case there can be no rational discourse, but only ontological argument. There is no such thing as 'collective consciousness', the human species is not a single organism, but a collection of individuals, and each individual is resposible for their own actions, and their own motives. Each individual has authority over themselves and no other. No one can speak for other individuals or claim to know the intentions thereof. No individual can claim such Omnipotence without betraying an obscene level of arrogance.217.208.57.69 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, no, consensus does not have to be absolute to be consensus. If a single editor has a problem with something that everyone else and the site's policies and guidelines (representing site-wide consensus) agree on, then that one editor is ignored.  That one person's consent is sought, but if it's not gained, oh well.
 * And Wikipedia is NOT for promotion. Anyone promoting any scientific theory should get published in peer-reviewed journals, not here.


 * This article can be regarded as 'anti-promotion' of plasma cosmology. I don't believe any advocates of plasma cosmology find this article interesting, considering the information is 20 years out of date, and can never be updated within existing Wikipedia protocols. This article is a dead cow.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Those who fear the truth" is a bigoted strawman used by people who don't know how to make decent arguments.
 * And you're right, no individual, including you, can claim any sort of omniscience -- that's why Wikipedia operates off of consensus and sticks with mainstream peer-reviewed science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * At no time in history have so many of those who fear the truth occupied the top tiers of the peer review process. Strawmen are misguided arguments, not bigots. Bigoted people are bigots, and I don't believe there are any bigots in this discussion. In any case, truth does not need decent arguments to be the truth - the truth comes out eventually whether anyone accepts it or not.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You've completely misrepresented what I wrote. I said that the statement "those who fear the truth" is both a bigoted statement and a strawman argument, denying the possibility that those who disagree with you might be doing so for any rational possibility but assuming an honestly stupid conspiracy on their part.


 * Any misrepresentation of your statement was unintentional - my sincere apologies. Misunderstandings do happen due to different semantic interpretations, especially when English is not one's native language.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the peer-review process is to have more eyes examining the contents of papers so fanatics don't push their pet theories and censor accurate science -- if plasma cosmology isn't supported by peer-review, there's a reason for that.


 * The purpose - Yes, in practise however, bias plays a major role, and especially 'confirmation bias' or 'non-confirmation' bias, as well as gender bias, which explains the extreme disproportion of publications by men compared to women.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And your comments about truth are nothing but a religious fundamentalism completely ignorant of science. Yes, facts are facts whether or not they're observed or agreed upon, but science relies on observation, just as Wikipedia operates on consensus.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, religious fundamentalism does not apply to non-theists. it applies to 'faith' (a belief that something exists without proof) such as dark matter and dark energy - which require faith. Secondly physicists are not completely ignorant of science. Thirdly, Science has nothing to do with winning arguments, Science is the search for empirical truth through direct experiment, distinct from purely mathematical models. BBT is essentially a mathematical model built on R(4) manifold tensor space, which requires imaginary mathematical entities for consistency (specifically dark matter and dark energy). Plasma Cosmology (as it now stands) is built strictly upon known measurable entities, and known measurable symmetry interactions within flat E(3) Euclidean space with time as a vector.  BBT is a creationist theory, where the plasma model is an infinite eternal unbounded cosmos.  These are the essential differences.  The dominant attitude of BBT supporters bears far more similarity to football hoolaginism than scientific objectivity. Objective scientists remain sceptical of all theories, especially the standard theory, and never cease putting the theory to the test. Treating a theory as an axiom is the antithesis of objectivity.217.208.57.69 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Making the same mistake as religious fundamentalists and calling it something else is still making the same mistake.Cite reliable sources in a neutral manner. We don't give a damn about your personal beliefs, no matter how much you keep calling them "the truth".  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My personal belief's are not anyone's concern but my own, nor have they been discussed here. The only truth herein referred to is "absolute truth", which neither I nor anyone has any control over. I have no further interest in contributing to any article on Wikipedia, cited or otherwise. So let the dead cow rest.217.208.57.69 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article will comply with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If AndyTheGrump has anything to say about it - it will indeed!217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh please. AndyTheGrump is 110% right. Much of what you write here has absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology. Much of what you say here comes directly under personal theory, and is rightly rejected. This is clearly not censorship but necessary removal because plasma cosmology does not match the overwhelming observational evidence.
 * For example, plasma cosmology relies on the universe being infinitely old and infinite in size, rejects basic physics like redshifts, and assumes magnetic fields far greater than can be observed. Field strength, say for the Milky Way are measured less than microgauss, where for plasma cosmology to be correct needs thousands of gauss. Worst still, you cannot even properly account for fusion reactions in stars, nor for the chemical evolution of stars and galaxies. I've even seen truly crazy things like using H-R diagrams t explain 'alternative' versions of stellar evolution, including stars evolving from red giants to blue stars! Even the Cosmic Background radiation cannot be properly explained by plasma cosmology, without rejecting whole swathes of quite basic physics. Black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs are also based on firmly established physics, like Relativity and quantum mechanics, yet these are rejected too. There are so many pillars that have to be broken, that even those with rudimentary knowledge of science, knows plasma cosmology or its offshoots, has the probability of zero to be right.
 * Yet here is a little insignificant fringe group, thinks it is OK to pretend they are astrophysicists and cosmologists, when they are really merely tinkering electricians. (Why publish you stuff in mainstream astrophysical papers instead of hiding away in irrelevant IEEE ones? Most of the papers on plasma cosmology are now thirty to forty years old, whose death occurred in the 1980s.)
 * As for you saying; "Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis " is plainly nuts. Spallation as a source of stellar energies is not sufficient enough to account for the output. Making lithium and other light elements via collisions are feasible, but it is insufficient to generate the quantities observed in nature by factors around 10^18 to 10^20!
 * So from many years experience and grief, especially with this article, we know the aim is to just bamboozle readers just to convert them to this bunkum irrational kind of voodoo science. While gravity, magnetic fields and plasma exist, gravity is still the most pervasive force of all.
 * As for credibility, why do you cower behind some IP address and give yourself a name?
 * This is the actual 'truth' here, and it is certainly not even near censorship you allege.
 * Anyway in the end it is not going to matter, because you've begun edit warring again, when you were only sanctioned recently. Your fate is almost assured. Thanks for your input and reinforcing established views about pseudoscience. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The 5th Dimension

 * Alas, The only reasonable explanation for the post below which fits probability - is page skimming.
 * I would suggest starting at the top of "Censorship" - then carefully reading each line, word by word. It should gradually become clear that we are 'not' in fact discussing Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is now 20 years out of date and has long since been abandoned by plasma astrophysics, in favour of a quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics, which will not be discussed on Wikipedia. I am happy to say, my part in this discussion on the plasma cosmology - talk page is now concluded.
 * You may chit-chat amongst yourselves if you wish.217.208.57.69 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * " I am happy to say, my part in this discussion on the plasma cosmology - talk page is now concluded." Thank you for your contributions. It is certainly helpful that you've added some further information with arguments why plasma cosmology should be treated as pseudoscience. It is interesting you bring up plasma astrophysics, which is a legitimate line of study, but at least this is based on fact.
 * As for quantum magnetohydrodynamic, Haas (2005) http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503021.pdf says in his conclusion, it applies; "For very dense plasmas and not to strong magnetic fields, the quantum corrections to magnetohydrodynamics can be relevant…" Note the word "relevant." It does not mean it is the dominant factor, it only means it is an addition small correction. Considering it was published only in Plasma Physics, and notably no astrophysical or cosmological source, says the some magical connection to astronomy and astrophysics is unlikely - and worst unproven. How it relates to plasma cosmology has not been stated by anyone in the literature. I.e. It is unverified, and likely trivial. (It links to two papers in the Introduction of this paper saying "dense astrophysical plasmas", but it appears in J. Phys. Condes. Matter and again Phys. Plasmas. (hardly credible astrophysical sources.) In nine years, this paper has two citations, both of which are totally unrelated to astrophysics or astrophysical phenomena. I.e. Neither refers to "dense astrophysical plasmas." Our only logical conclusion is you are desperately clutching with straws with unverified irrelevancies.
 * As for saying; "Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is now 20 years out of date and has long since been abandoned by plasma astrophysics, in favour of a quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics…" It is an out-and-out falsehood. (probably deliberately.) No one has connected the two ('Alfvén-Klein cosmology' and 'quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics') and it is clear that even 'magnetohydrodynamics' by itself is quite unrelated. Even this plasma cosmology article correctly points out that "Hannes Alfvén, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his other (unrelated) work in magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)." So wouldn't it be just as irrelevant towards "quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics"?  Even if it were true, it would mostly be strictly limited to some black hole scenarios (which are still unproven.)
 * If you have any other legitimate points, I'd be happy to oblige, but it seems to me your grossly out of your league in this matter when it relates to plasma cosmology. Thanks again for your input. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 217.208.57.69 said; 'CMBR was not originally a component of BBT, it was claimed as such only after it's discovery in 1964. Sir Arthur Eddington had already calculated the ambient temperature of starlight 40 years earlier, in 1924, at 2.7 Kelvin, which was precisely correct. CMBR is as much evidence for BBT as it is for Plasma Cosmology, a fact which does not quite get through the heads of cheerleaders for BBT."


 * Again another falsehood. Truth, Eddington calculated a temperature of space 3.18K in 1926, and he attributed it to only stellar radiance. At best it was a guess, with most of the assumptions he based it on either disproved or being simply wrong. Actually, the first to do this was Charles Guillaume in 1879, who thought the space temperature from those same stars was about 5K. Simple logic. If you are going to quote facts then get it right and stop needless cherry picking. Plasma cosmology does not predict this at all, and it fails because it requires the Universe to be infinite in size and age. It is the measured redshifts that mostly confirm the Big Bang and not only the background radiation. (It is saying the universe is hot, actually, and was hotter in the past.) Yet, the redshift is not the only thing that confirmed that the universe is expanding, because it is also proportion to the size of galaxies. I.e The larger the redshift, the smaller proportional average size of the observed galaxy or even the maximum brightness of supernova shows a similar proportion. Silly specious arguments like this just make your own claims plainly silly. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned Theory
The Alfvén-Klein theorum of plasma cosmology, has long been abandoned by theoretical plasma astrophysicists. It has since been entirely replaced with a completely new TOE model "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics (QMHD)" in development at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Any arguments against Alfvén-Klein cosmology are therefore redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.57.69 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am eagerly waiting the reliable sources for this replacement. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt Wikipedia will be permitted to publish any details on QMHD for the foreseeable future (if ever), even Swedish Wiki, due to Wikipedia's Creative Commons license. This is old news amongst colleagues at KTH (Here in Sweden), but thus far no official press release (Varken Svenska eller Engelska). I personally will not post any more sources in Wikipedia again.217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "I personally will not post any more sources in Wikipedia again." Thanks for that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics" has very few hits in google, and none are related to plasma cosmology. I suspect that 217.208.57.69 is trying to troll us for laughs. I suspect that this "theories" are purposefully misguided, and carefully crafted to provoke lots of outraged replies. I suggest not feeding the troll. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked too. "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics" or "quantum plasmas" looks like a real, if small, research field. None of the hits I found discussed cosmology.  As for intent, it is also possible that the IP is a true believer who has fooled himself or herself.  Cardamon (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of Dr. Haas' paper on Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics, it's quite interesting, however this has nothing to do with plasma cosmology, and no connection to the model of QMHD I was refereing to, in develeopment at KTH which is 'ongoing research'. The goal being a unified TOE. I am not even sure what the actual 'Title' of the model will ultimately be, and what I 'do' know is based on insider talk (rumour-gossip) at KTH. Only the researchers themselves know the details of this model, so it's impossible to even discuss at the moment, aside of being off the topic of Alfvén-Klein plasma cosmology, which most (if not all) plasma cosmologists have departed from in favour of revised models, including Dr. Eric Lerner.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally - Arianewiki1 and I have started a sub-discussion in my talk page, if anyone is interested.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't quite true. I have no intention to continue any discussion considering your past behaviours and misconduct. I.e. Personal name calling like calling me "Snivelling Bedwetter)" None of your statements are congruous with plasma cosmology being anything other than fringe science/pseudoscience (which 217.208.57.69 should read.) Even saying and quoting pro-plasma cosmologist E. Lerner (in your now previous deleted edit); "However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded." shows your intent to distort the facts to suit some underlying agenda. Even by claiming a MSc degree and behaving as you have, would be easily considered as scientific misconduct anywhere. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As you wish. This discussion can be regarded as closed then.217.208.57.69 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Scientific Heretic is a distinction far more honourable than Nobel Laureate.217.208.57.69 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology : Article Needs to be (Again) semi-protected
This Plasma cosmology : Article needs to be (Again) semi-protected for another lengthy period. Due to the continuous consequences of all this disruption, semi-protection of the article has become necessary, so at least registered users can properly trace such edits. The was done six months ago to counteract similar behaviours as currently being displayed.

Furthermore, the following highly disturbing blog "Wikipedia (rules in a knife fight…)" [] (written by "tholden" 28th March 2014). It highlights a likely continuous attack by Anonymous users. Semi-protection on these pages would therefore be advisable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is unquestionably controversial, however I do not see a rational argument for 'locking' the article, when blocking vandals should be enough. Also, it is completely inappropriate to refer to plasma cosmology as fringe science, given that the model was developed by acredited professional physicists, in accordance with accepted interactions of known physics. It is far from pseudoscience, which is typically metaphysics at best, and crank fantasy at worst.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Here "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." As such, it easily defies WP:NPOV on many levels, and proponents of plasma cosmology attempt to elevate importance regardless of the overwhelming evidence that refutes it. You may disagree, but those are the facts regardless of what is right or wrong. (The article is at best a compromise, mostly because of the seemingly endless war by proponents to use this article to promote their underlying agenda and not WP:LISTEN. WP:GF is desired here, but continuous WP:DE with plasma cosmology has meant a harder line adopted on editors.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why Dr. Eric Lerner is banned from editing the plasma cosmology talk page, when Dr. Lerner is himself an expert in the field of plasma cosmology, and even cited in the article.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * He was banned with good reason for not following Wikipedia policy, especially regarding issues towards pseudoscience. Expert or not, the rules apply equally to all. Agenda driven articles like "Wikipedia (rules in a knife fight…)", plainly does no one any favours. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Eric Lerner was censored for refuting biased criticism. It is not Dr. Lerner's loss, but the loss of those engaged in broad unbiased scientific enquiry. Wikipedia will lose any semblance of credibility if authoritarian censorship prevails. Pseudoscience and Fringe Science have replaced the term "Witchcraft" here in the late Dark Ages. Alternative models have become the new "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" and Peer Review the new Canon of the Papal Throne. An organised team of Guerrilla Skeptics who have produced a training video, have seized hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, and taken on the role of sycophancy of the mainstream, defenders of the faith.217.208.57.69 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Eric Lerner was censored for refuting biased criticism." This is false, as are many others stated. Evidence please. Not recognising WP:GF can also be sanctioned. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The evidence is contained in the edit history from 2006 to the present, for all the world to see. The censors can never erase this permanent record - containing every edit and revert ever made. Readers are encouraged to search diligently through the article history and come to their own conclusions, without having their science spoon-fed to them through the sieve of authoritarian censorship by self anointed little Mussolinis.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Treat the IP as a troll and nothing more
He has said "I have no further interest in contributing to any article on Wikipedia, cited or otherwise. So let the dead cow rest." Furthermore, his behavior indicates a level of WP:IDHT that cannot allow us to reasonably (or unreasonably) assume both good faith and/or competence. Please remove any additional edits to the page without comment under WP:DFTT. Don't argue with him, just revert him. Don't let him use the site as a forum or soapbox, just revert him. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sentence in lead with grammar issues
"Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales."

I've read this several times, and it still makes no sense to me. It seems to imply that "astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics." I very much doubt that astronomical bodies are influenced by Einstein's theory, mainly because they can't read. I assume this is intending to say that "cosmologists and astrophysicists" use these theories to explain the behaviour of "astronomical bodies and structures in the universe", but the end of the sentence reads as if the bodies themselves are trying to explain their own origin, structure and evolution. Very mystical. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To explain. Plasma cosmology supporters believe that the "dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas", which produce magnetic fields, are the primary influence on astrophysical phenomena and cosmology in the universe. They deny that "gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics" are the main influences on many astronomical objects and the evolution of the universe, which is overwhelmingly supported and has real evidence found by astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologist. Plasma cosmology is a reject theory because considered as very unlikely that so many fundamental underlying principles found in nature are wrong. It is considered pseudoscience and of minor importance.
 * Although agreeably clumsy, the wording has been made as a significant compromise to balance the facts. I agree too, that the first sentence should include something on magnetic fields, which might be an idea for some editor to add. (After the last week of mayhem going on with this article, a few of us might enjoy a breather for a little while.) Your comments here are particularly valuable, probably as it is a fresh perspective. Thanks! Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The phrase "agreeably clumsy" in English means "clumsy in a charming way", which, I am sure, is not what you intended. I think you meant to say that you agree that it's clumsy. You miss, however, my central point. It's not just clumsy. The sentence as it stands appear to say that the "astronomical bodies" themselves are influenced by Einstein, which is nonsensical. Paul B (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes you are perfectly right. Sorry for that… Could you perhaps please rewrite this sentence in the talk page, and perhaps include it in as an improvement. (I'd only wish the to save further grief by other users.) Would the words "astronomical objects" suffice?? Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , based the version of this discussion prior to your most recent posting, I took a stab at re-wording that sentence on the article page. I'm sorry if you wanted it to be hashed out on the talk page first. I did not see your most recent edit here prior to saving my edit to the article. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I cannot disagree with your modifications here. Now to satisfy Paul B too! Thanks! Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You've added to the article "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy." That makes absolutely no sense. Plasma cosmologist primarily believe that magnetic fields produced by plasmas are dominate over gravity. QM and GR are the principles of the origin and evolution of the universe, which the plasma cosmologist argue and infinite in size and age. They need this to have the magnetic fields strong enough to be stronger than gravity. "The relationship between space, time, mass and energy" is totally irrelevant to the subject of plasma cosmology. This is why it is removed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Has someone hijacked your account? I assume not, but the question did cross my mind.
 * , you have totally reversed your position on this issue without explanation, just reverting. Your above post implies that you have, again, misread the sentence/paragraph in question. The paragraph changes from talking about those that believe in plasma cosmology to contrasting such with what is believed by mainstream thinkers.
 * I added the additional text "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy" after you reverted the edit which you above called "Excellent" (just above your last post, at 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC), 14 days ago). The "space, time, mass and energy" text was added in an attempt to find wording which you would find acceptable (at least for another 14 days). Is that wording perfect, certainly not.
 * The issue remains that the sentence to which you have reverted does not make grammatical sense. It is not possible for "astronomical bodies and structures in the universe" to be influenced by Einstein's theory of general relativity. They have not suddenly become sentient, read the theory and decided that it was a good idea. Einstein's theory of general relativity describes (is a mathematical model for) relationships in space and time. The theory is an attempt to model reality (which it does well). Reality can not be influenced by a theory. A theory can accurately describe reality (e.g. relationships).
 * One way or another, the sentence "...astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, and quantum mechanics", needs to change to make grammatical sense.


 * I consider your actions today to be inappropriate. I find it very contrary to building a consensus for you to one day say that something is "Excellent" and then 14 days later have your action to be to revert the edit with the comment that other people should be responsible for opening a discussion. No. It has been discussed. If you wanted it changed, or no longer like it, then it is your responsibility to come to the talk page and explain your change of position (which could be as simple as "sorry people, I misread it the first time"). I'm happy to continue to discuss what should be in the article. I am not wedded to any particular wording. It is, however, a requirement that the text makes sense grammatically. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC); add reply to & U templates to ping Arianewiki1 and make it clear who the "you" is in my post. 05:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

——————————
 * Hang on a moment, before we get into a serious and unnecessary argument here. I agree. I'm probably at fault here.
 * Makyen says "I find it very contrary to building a consensus for you to one day say that something is "Excellent" and then 14 days later have your action to be to revert the edit with the comment that other people should be responsible for opening a discussion." Yes I added this on 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)," responding to your edit on 19:46, 13 June 2014‎ ;
 * Makyen then says above; "Your above post implies that you have, again, misread the sentence/paragraph in question. The paragraph changes from talking about those that believe in plasma cosmology to contrasting such with what is believed by mainstream thinkers." You are correct here, as I did likely misread your sentence. Yes, I should have paused and discussed this before I reedited it. Sorry. (This article is under attack by many editors, that it gets frustrating trying to keep it undamaged by the naysayers over many years.) I do appreciate your sincerity here, and again my apologies. You Makyen also say "which could be as simple as "sorry people, I misread it the first time". Agreed, You are quite right here. I did probably misread this originally.
 * Now what I only wanted to revert is the inference with the "...as described by…"
 * Here this text might be more "grammatically correct", but it is not factual. The original sentence said;
 * "mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics" (Three separate items) You'vechanged it to read only " gravity; the relationship between as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity; and quantum mechanics." (Two items, not three.)
 * The original referred to;
 * Gravity (non-relativistic), such as appears in the solar system, between stars, within galaxies.
 * Einstein's theory of general relativity (relativistic) such as the expanding universe as observed in redshifted galaxies, and
 * Quantum mechanics in the formation of the universe, etc.
 * Plasma cosmologists believe plasma/magnetic fields dominate over gravity (non-relativistic) gravitational forces.
 * They also reject Einstein's theory of general relativity because they don't accept the expansion of the universe by the observed redshifts.
 * Therefore, these are two separate items gravity and GR, not just under GR alone.
 * (Note: They want the universe to be infinite in size and infinite in age, which observations do not support, nor do they want the universe to be expanding but they need it to be static. If none of these are upheld, the magnetic field lines cannot support the domination of plasma over gravity, and their theory is greatly weakened.)
 * Next, when Makyen had added: "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy" on the 17:39, 26 June 2014‎ ". This addition is plainly is wrong and not relevant to the discussion. What you are saying has nothing to do with gravity nor Einstein's theory of general relativity in the content of plasma cosmology!
 * So adding "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy" means nothing, which I can only assume you added to reinforce your statement "Einstein's theory of general relativity."
 * Do you Makyen have anything that proves this proposition stated above is incorrect. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for taking a step back and helping to calm the situation down. I understand the frustration that comes with spending large amounts of time and effort dealing with people attacking an article. I think we have all had situations we were have reacted a bit too fast, or assumed something not quite accurate. It happens. We are all human.
 * Let's move forward.
 * I have no vested interest in the "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy" text. It was an attempt at making GR be a separate item.  My, admittedly very basic, understanding of GR is that it, at its basis, describes the geometry of space-time (the geometry causing relativistic effects, etc.). In particular, the effects GR describes are dramatically more relevant in the presence of large quantities of mass–energy (I believe more accurately high densities of mass-energy). Thus after your revert, the text I put in of "gravity; the relationship between space, time, mass and energy, as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity; and quantum mechanics" was a list of 3 items separated by semicolons with 1=gravity, 2=GR, and 3=quantum mechanics. I am aware that describing GR that way is a huge over-simplification, but it was what I came up with on the spur of the moment to make it a complete second item. It is also possible that my understanding of GR is flawed.


 * So, let's see if we can come up with some text that says something more along the lines of what is desired. We appear to have gravity and quantum mechanics easily covered. Let's put them on the back burner for a moment.
 * From your above text what appears to be intended to be conveyed by stating "Einstein's theory of general relativity" may be multiple things, or is not specific as to what is being rejected.
 * Hmmmm... let's step back a moment. The sentence we are working on currently states "This is contrary to the general consensus ... which strongly supports that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by" 1, 2, and 3. Is this really what we want to be saying here?  You appear to want to concentrate on what is being rejected by Plasma cosmologists rather than a list of the things which "astronomical bodies and structures ... are mostly influenced by". These may, or may not be exactly the same things, and/or best stated in the same way. Are we wanting to talk about the "mostly influenced by", or what is rejected by Plasma cosmologists. Should we look at re-vamping the entire sentence and re-word it as what is rejected by Plasma cosmologists?
 * If not, we need a good way to state the reality/effects/relationships described by GR which fits with "astronomical bodies and structures ... are mostly influenced by", or re-word that.
 * Before we go down either road, let's decide if we are re-wording to highlight what is rejected by Plasma cosmologists, or if we are sticking with "are mostly influenced by". Another alternative is that we could add a sentence or two after the "These can be used to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales." (or remove that sentence entirely). In addition to the "influenced by", we could add text to the effect of "Of the implications of these influences, Plasma cosmology rejects that the universe is expanding and is of limited size and age. Even though the general consensus is supported by a huge amount of observations, Plasma cosmology rejects these because it requires a static universe that is infinite in both size and age."
 * So, what direction do we want to be going here? &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hummm, apples can't read, but they obey gravity anyways.

Photons can't read, but they obey Einstein's theory anyways.

Galaxies can't read, but they obey physics laws anyways.

Etc.

Another issue. I don't understand the point of adding "the relationship between space, time, mass and energy." It looks like we are explaining the theory? But we don't need to explain the theory? We already link to theory of general relativity! The theory is explained in that link! We can't explain everything we link, the sentences would become really long and complex.

The general principle is: put summaries in the lead, put detailed explanations in the body. In the lead you only put "it applies to galaxies", in the body you put all the details of how it applies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that apples, photons and galaxies don't "obey" einstein's theory or the laws of physics. Our theories and laws are simply an approximation, a best guess at how the world works. the problem comes from calling such things "laws" as they create the mental connection to human/government laws, i.e. that which is imposed on to others Myhonor (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

POV Article with Erroneous Facts?
The article appears to be written with a definite POV bias. I also noted the statement that the predictions of the plasma cosmology model would require galactic currents on the order of 10^17 to 10^19 amps, something which "simply isn't measured." I wonder if the writer has seen the results of P. P. Kronberg et al. in 2011 which actually provided a measurement of the bipolar galactic jets at 3C203, and it yielded a result of 3x10^18 amps? Alanwilliams101 (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanwilliams101 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could clarify what you found biased, that would be helpful. As would offering any specific changes backed up by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Plasma cosmology is supposed to explain the whole universe not just one object's bipolar galactic jets from 3C203. Plasma cosmology openly rejects black holes, but the likely cause of the these jets is a super massive black hole (SMBH) in the heart of a galaxy. Our own galaxy's massive black hole has much evidence to support it, based observationally on the orbital motion of the components dense nuclear cluster.


 * The 3C 203 paper you mentions nothing at all about 'plasma cosmology', and the cause of the jets is stated as a SMBH. The magnetic field was not actually observed but was estimated and assumed in their analysis, and is highly dependant on the flow regime into the SMBH and the particle density. There are several discussions in the associated papers giving alternative explanations in the article citations.


 * Again. What heck has this to do with plasma cosmology? How? (Magnetic fields exist in space, but that doesn't equate that now the whole universe is alive with possible fields as active as 3C 203. Most of the fields in the universe are extremely weak, as clearly verified by polarimetry. 3C 203 is certainly a rarity in the universe.)


 * Also your POV bias is more with a lack of evidence to support the rather nebulous/vague connection with plasma cosmology.


 * Note: Please sign all post with the four tildes, otherwise it is hard to take your suggestions on face value, even if they are valid.. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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


 * No. It would be rejected. This is also not a primary source. Electric Universe (physics) is a constructed fiction based on misinformation and an agenda. (Thank you for bring this to my attention, though.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected. You should feel free to nominate the redirect for deletion; deletion reasons 5 ("The redirect makes no sense") and 10 ("...the target article contains virtually no information on the subject") might apply. I would normally do something like that myself but I don't know anything about the topic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The International Science Foundation, a group which claims to neither support nor oppose the Electric Universe hypothesis, has provided $2,200,000 USD to fund an unprecedented repeatable laboratory experiment to test the Electric Universe claims regarding the nature of the sun. The intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission, and thereby demonstrate whether the Electric Universe solar model (in particular) has any solid grounding in real, repeatable observations.


 * That said, enough real activity is happening with the Electric Universe hypothesis, that it deserves its own wiki page at this point - even if it remains classified as pseudo-science rather than proto-science. I believe the severe distinctions between the Electric Universe hypothesis, and the more basic Plasma Cosmology, warrant separate pages for the two hypotheses, perhaps with some appropriate referential links. Giffyguy (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The promotion of this is still pseudoscience, and then claims that this somehow back by NASA via a YouTube propaganda clip is plainly ludicrous. Since the recent papers regarding the likely strong magnetic fields exist in the sun's core via asteroseismology, the proponents of electric universe and plasma cosmology start acting nuts (again). Worst, if you go to the link unprecedented repeatable laboratory experiment you get a 404 error!! This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it? Also this alleged organisation is not "The International Science Foundation for Science", which it attempt to confuse the reader. The site under is also attempting to raise $1.2 million, NOT "provided $2,200,000 USD to fund" as claimed here. Worst the site claims "ISF offered" $1 million dollars in 2013. They did not actually present this money! Does not Dr. Michael Clarage also run the site you claim here?


 * NASA has not plan to explore anything to do with the Electric Universe hypothesis, and to subtly claim otherwise via this International Science Foundation is tantamount to fraud.


 * Just type SAFIRE is a Google search, and you get nothing absolutely about this!!


 * Using Wikipedia for promotion is against policy, and as such, the need for some page of the Electric Universe will not likely occur. (I'd speak against such a move!) Please, stop wasting Wikipedia editor's time!! Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize if there is any miss-communication here, including if I miss-read the funding information. I don't know anything about that organization, I'm just referencing what they claimed in their description on their website, as well as the apparent result of this research funding in the form of the vacuum chamber experiment design shown in the video. That URL works for me, so I'm not sure what's going on with your browser. I'm not interested in promoting anything, pseudo-science or otherwise. This is intended to be an informative article, based on factual information (by proper academic standards, e.g. peer-reviewed publications), nothing more. I don't believe I insinuated anything about NASA backing the SAFIRE Project, but I'm happy to consider better wording if the current phrasing is confusing. The reference to the comparison between the results of the SAFIRE Project and NASA's Solar Probe Plus are also taken from the same presentation. All if this information can be cleared up as needed, if there is still miss-understanding. At the end of the day, the topic needs an article explaining the nature (and problems) of this hypothesis, especially since it is growing into an organization of notable size (annual conventions, independent research, etc.) It's troublesome to Google "electric universe", and only find pseudoscience in the top results, and Wikipedia is a fabulous place to address this issue for the global community. My understanding is that this is what Wikipedia is for, correct me if I am mistaken. Giffyguy (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Utter garbage. There is no "mis-understanding." You said "I don't know anything about that organization, I'm just referencing what they claimed in their description on their website," Why would some novice access a fraudulent website, with no facts nor support, then claim "...Wikipedia is a fabulous place to address this issue for the global community." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Promotion is not allowed. Push this pseudoscience garbage, and I'm not the only one will respond accordingly. SAFIRE is a fraud design to confuse the novice who knows no better. Push it, and dozens will push back! Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone is using Wikipedia for non-neutral promotion, it appears to be you. For your information, the first legitimate publication I'm going to use in my draft, is an article critical of the Electric Universe, published in Scientific American last month: The Electric Universe Acid Test - Discerning science from pseudoscience. I'll be on the lookout for more publications of this nature, quality, and legitimacy - but this should be a good start for now. Bear in mind, this discussion was only supposed to be about whether or not an article in some fashion should exist - with real publications available, I think it should. Keeping things neutral and complying with Wikipedia's standards and policies should not be a problem. Giffyguy (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "...publications of this nature, quality, and legitimacy..." - since this is supposed to be a science topic, Wikipedia needs peer reviewed scientific publications in reputable journals. EU proponents haven't published any science articles in I don't even know how long, and they don't make robust quantitative predictions on their self-published webpages. Until they do, there's no point in a separate Wikipedia article about their claims. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've got a list of a couple dozen publications I'm digging through at the moment, most of which should be IEEE or the like (I'm confirming whether each meets the standard you described). Some of these publications are also currently cited for the existing Plasma Cosmology article (since Plasma Cosmology is a small, partial subset of Electric Universe). As I mentioned before, complying with Wikipedia's standards and policies should not be a problem.
 * I think I'll take this opportunity to point out that most of the opposition here seems somewhat subjective, and based on incorrect assumptions (such as the assumption that there are no peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals, while the Plasma Cosmology article already cites several to begin with). I'm doing the legwork myself here, and I'm fine with that - the purpose of this dialog is to make sure everyone can be on the same page. I don't intend to write an article citing self-published website data - I only pointed that page out, to demonstrate that these people are doing something noteworthy in one way or another, even if it is only notable in its perceived ridiculousness. If the issue is really only the perceived lack of reputable publications, I'll certainly refrain from drafting an article if I can't find any. Let me know if you have any other concerns, otherwise I'll proceed with drafting an initial skeleton of this article based on what, if any, reputable peer-reviewed publications I can find, and including reputable criticism and opposition in at least equal measure. Giffyguy (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, and all this is supposed to be justification of a new page on the "Electric universe"? The IEEE does do legitimate work, but that is under the topic of Plasma (physics) NOT astronomy nor cosmology. I.e. IEEE members are neither astrophysicists or cosmologists. Rejection of relevant papers in not only peer-review but also papers relevant to those who study under it.
 * As for saying "If anyone is using Wikipedia for non-neutral promotion, it appears to be you." Well done. Accuse the accuser. What am I promoting then? Wikipedia has policies that do not promote organisations or POV. Electric universe and Plasma cosmology are considered pseudoscience or Fringe science. As stated "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method." After the problems with this page alone, with fanatical EU/PC nutters hell-bent to ignore actual science and replace it with nonsense, you'll excuse us for not taking your word and be totally skeptical. Failing to be upfront and factual might help too, especially in light of the deceptions and falsehoods so far presented here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Page Protection
I've just found links between plasma cosmology and plasma scaling, which are not valid because the topics discussed are quite unrelated. It seems these have been deliberately linked probably as vandalism to either mislead or support plasma cosmology. I found it as the scaling factors stated are different under different circumstance, but in plasma cosmology the scale is presumably linear. The addition (and the plasma scaling edit/article was made by Iantresman here and who has been a previous editor of plasma cosmology related articles.

I need time to see where and how these edits have been applied and fix these edits on both pages.

I also want to remove the scaling image. I.e.


 * "Image:Cosmic-triple-jump.png|thumb|200px|Hannes Alfvén suggested that scaling laboratory results can be extrapolate up to the scale of the universe. A scaling jump by a factor 109 was required to extrapolate to the magnetosphere, a second jump to extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump to extrapolate to the Hubble distance. "

I would then link the reference to...


 * "Some theoretical concepts about plasma cosmology originated with Hannes Alfvén, who tentatively proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders-of-magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe (See box .)"

Note: I have removed the offending material from plasma scaling

Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * i assume you'll defend and take responsibility for the attack that is just about to start? Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean, as this article hasn't been protected since September 2014. Doug Weller  talk 12:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just removed the edit request template because the article is not semi protected, that is all. I assume you want it to be protected, then you can make a request here. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  13:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . Oh, my mistake. I posted it in the wrong place. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Have a good one... Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Modification of first paragraph
Let's start slowly.

I modified the first paragraph to something that I think is more in-line with the actual points about the state of modern cosmology I think this is an important point to make with regards to a contrast to plasma cosmology, but I also think that it might look a bit like a red herring to a casual reader to have such an information dump. What I don't think we should do is pretend that this is just a matter of a difference of opinion (which is, I would argue, what the previous text tended to do).

diff

I would love it if we could modify this text rather than simply reverting back to the previous version, even if we incorporate ideas or even wordings from the previous work, though I recognize that WP:BRD could provide another option here.

jps (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Workshop a sentence
The article lede currently contains the sentence: "As of 2017, the vast majority of researchers have openly rejected plasma cosmology and Alfvén's plasma scaling because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."

So here are my issues with this:


 * 1) "As of 2017" makes it seem like there is some chance that next year, for example, researchers will not openly reject plasma cosmology. This is an impression that is misleading at best.
 * 2) "Vast majority of researchers", in fact, don't even know about plasma cosmology. It's obscure, fringe, and only those who remember pre-COBE results or Alfvén's Nobel Prize speech will have any recollection of plasma cosmology's moments of pan flashing.
 * 3) Alfvén's plasma scaling isn't rejected outright, but only rejected as relevant to cosmological scales. It surely works in contexts where plasma physics is relevant (such as in magnetospheres).

I would perfer a wording which describes the acceptance level of plasma cosmology as:

"Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory."

That's a much more accurate, in my mind, statement about the status quo.

jps (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No need to disagree. This is much better than the original text, which is more clumsy and awkward. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Vast majority" not re-includable without citation and tone-down.
The "vast majority" phrase is immediately removable because it's dubious and it's not sourced. It's dubious because it overstates ("vast majority", "openly reject", etc.) something which is more encyclopedically stated in less strong tones -- as its already redundantly stated to be non-standard cosmology. Also, because of its strong wording, the phrase has a POV scent -- as if someone felt a very strong need to slam the subject for being non-standard. Lastly, (and less importantly) anything in the lede should be a summary of something in the main body. If reinstated, this material should also be integrated into the main body. 24.34.59.23 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree. These words are added to make the article stable and remove possible misinterpretations. As the article guidelines say: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed." The text presented has been made to be explicit by consensus. I.e. There has been no actual formal papers on plasma cosmology since the 1980s mid-1990s. I will now revert your edits, but I suggest you might attempt to gain some new consensus if it is to change.


 * I also do suggest you become a registered User rather than an IP address. It is a task easy to do. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've taken a second look at the complaint above, and I do agree with the problems of the statements between the lede and the main body of the text. Often a summary can be difficult as the technical aspects in the document cannot be easily summised without a further explanation. Editors have been very harsh guarding the page because of the strong opinions that have caused havoc in the past. We have a stable version, and with little research in this cosmological subject, the facts about it just haven't changed one iota. Still, a consensus to change this is feasible. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this page in a while and it looks like it devolved into some clunky wording. I tried to clean it up. There's probably more cleaning to be had. jps (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors responsible for the original, harsh, wording, I think I'm ok with your edits. As with many WP:FRINGE topics, it's hard to balance what "everyone" in the field knows, with what's actually been written down (often little, because the experts think a topic is to silly to bother with). - Parejkoj (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the previous wording was more-or-less accurate, it just seems like it could use a little massaging is all. Plasma cosmology is getting to be more-or-less of historical interest only as the ideas it pushes become more and more out-of-step with the current observations and, indeed, outstanding mysteries in cosmology. jps (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The last four edits were unnecessary, especially in light of avoiding consensus. Past history of this topic is from an underground of those who wish to promote and disseminate that this is true and a viable theory.
 * The whole purpose of these words is to point out simply why consensus rejects plasma cosmology, short circuiting any problematic edits.
 * These words "This is contrary to the consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists which strongly supports the theory that astronomical bodies and large-scale structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics. These can be used to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales."
 * The point is, that magnetic fields, generated by plasma inducement, are not dominate or coherent on cosmological scales. Plasma cosmology fails because it discounts relativity and quantum mechanical effects on the very early universe. (It also requires the universe to be infinite for the fields to work, which is why the Big Bang is discounted.
 * The problem with the change "Mainstream cosmologists and astrophysicists, by contrast, use a variety of tools to model the formation, development, and evolution of large scale structure and astronomical objects including gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, radiative transfer, quantum mechanics, and, indeed, plasma physics." is that this drastically changes the implicit meaning is the earlier version. Modelling has little to do why the consensus is against plasma cosmology, mostly because our observations don't support this view (I.e. The 3K cosmic background radiation, redshifts, etc.), whereas using the theories of gravitation, relativity and quantum mechanics together require no additional drastic modification. Plasma cosmology does. That's the whole point.
 * Furthermore adding radiative transfer only applies to stars and not cosmology. This is totally irrelevant.
 * I have reverted this section back to the earlier version, an urge you to gain better consensus. (I'll happily debate or explain any issue you have with this.) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the issue with the current wording is that it isn't "consensus" which rejects plasma cosmology. It's plain facts. This isn't just a matter of a difference of opinion. It really is about the ideas being contradicted by observation and coherent theory. I think you'll find that radiative transfer applies to more than just stars. jps (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Saying "Well, the issue with the current wording is that it isn't "consensus" which rejects plasma cosmology. It's plain facts." is 110% true. True, but you can have consensus and still be wrong. (Like we sometimes find in Wikipedia article rules.) But the article's consensus here is a long-time gained compromise, and while this may or may not be true, terming theories as absolutes just causes friction with the supporters of plasma cosmology who have regularly wanted modified this article in the past.
 * I think the statement is balanced and at least explains why it remains an unsupported theory.
 * You also said: "...radiative transfer applies to more than just stars." Please could you give me a relevant example. Where this differs maybe supernovae, white dwarfs or neutron stars. (I know of none that are on cosmological scales, though there are papers on heating or ionising the intergalactic medium (highly theoretical for an article like this one.) Radiative transfer requires opacity and/or thermal conduction. Most of the universe is empty space. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I spent sometime looking at this. Cosmological radiative transfer exists, but is dreadfully complex and theoretical, but importantly does not apply to plasma cosmology. To validate this, we would need to relate standard cosmology to radiative transfer, then somehow also then relate it to plasma cosmology. Worst it is sidelined by intergalactic fields, of which we know very little, and what do know, heavily favours the magnetic fields are too weak to be coherent enough. Using gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, and quantum mechanics greatly discounts plasma cosmology to be true (unless there are many significant flaws across a number of different physics theories. Very unlikely. I.e. Redshifts explanations by some radical new physics.) Hope that helps. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, first of all, you haven't been editing the article long enough to claim "longtime-gained compromise". Second, compromise has little to do with this. We don't compromise with pro-fringe editors. 2600:1017:B028:2D93:183D:3EE4:B9F0:1413 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that we don't compromise with fringe editors and certainly any justification for text that it is a longstanding compromise should be reconsidered. We should aim to gain consensus however and as I respect Arianewiki1's work here, I would like to obtain that consensus. I think there are two outstanding problems: (1) identifying the problem of plasma cosmology as being one that is opposed to scientific consensus. I would argue that this is not the problem since the vast majority of cosmologists(!) haven't even heard of plasma cosmology. Rather the problem is that it simply doesn't work and doesn't explain what we see. (2) the laundry list of tools that mainstream cosmology has in its toolchest is not particularly useful except as a contrast to the sole hammer that plasma cosmology proponents have tended to wield. To the extent that radiative transfer is one of those tools (used most often by early universe cosmologists), it is no more or less useful to list it, but is a list all that necessary? Quantum mechanics really isn't used that often in cosmology either (unless you count the reliance of particle physics on qm). I think there might be a better way to phrase this. jps (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * POINT 1 Regardless my arguments above, no cosmological theory is absolute. (It has changed, and will change in the future.) We cannot say absolutely that plasma cosmology is totally wrong, mostly because we do not have observation evidence to prove otherwise. (I.e. The same idea could be argued, that the laws of the universe maybe different in different places, meaning that our standard cosmology would be invalid. We cannot even prove that absolutely.) This is why our views of the universe must be portrayed as by a current 'consensus' instead of terms of totally 'true' or 'false', because the 'scientific evidence' supporting it is already mostly conjecture and is based on certain given assumptions. (This does not necessarily mean plasma cosmology is right though, and I do know of many other things not mentioned in this article here to suspect otherwise.) Removing 'consensus' in the text is a fundamental mistake because it doesn't understand the nature of the difficult investigations of cosmology. It could also be equally argued on the nature of dark matter and dark energy too, whose continued study is also based conjecture, and support is also mostly by consensus.


 * POINT 2: "Quantum mechanics really isn't used that often in cosmology either (unless you count the reliance of particle physics on qm)." In actuality, QM importance is the main explanation for the origin / cause of the Big Bang, explaining the creation of the four main forces, energy for the expansion, and the matter that the universe contains. It also affirms that the universe is finite in age. It basically goes some way to explain the true compositional nature of the universe and why electromagnetic forces are not dominate. (Evidence against plasma cosmology is that the universe must be infinite in size and in age.) The large scale structure of the universe is also based on the quantum fluctuations in the early universe, whose evidence is on the variations in the 3K background.


 * Also this statement isn't talking about the many 'tools' used, but the available observations of the universe explained in terms of the physical laws. I.e. Simply, gravitation explains the structure, relativity explains the expansion, and quantum mechanics explains the origins of space, time and matter. Using these three physics pillars is the central 'consensus' of cosmologists and astrophysicists to explain universe. (Notable you place gravity with relativity as a subset. This is also wrongly argued, because relativity is also to do with creation of spacetime, energy and our place in the universe as seen by the observer.) As Big Bang article rightly says: "ΛCDM model of cosmology, which uses the independent frameworks of quantum mechanics and Einstein's General Relativity."


 * Also these current change you've made including "fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer, plasma physics" cannot be exclusively used to "...explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales." None of these fields of investigation can be used to dismiss or contrast either plasma cosmology or the standard cosmological models.


 * The original text was just a simplification so the average reader could understand it. The additions make something already complex even more complex. I appreciate the efforts here, but if you need to have this in place, it will need to be cited, as I don't see these additions as necessary, relevant nor even totally true. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me take your two well-argued points in turn:


 * POINT 1: I don't object whatsoever to including a sentence about consensus in the lede or in the article itself, but we should look for some discussion of this vis-a-vis plasma cosmology if that's the direction we would like to take. The problem as I see it is that plasma cosmology is actually not a well-formed proposition in comparison to mainstream cosmology. It's not even well-formed in comparison to ideas such as the relativistic extensions to MOND. If plasma cosmology is to look as a competitor to standard explanations, its development will have to proceed and WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from really predicting how such would go down. As it is, I think consensus is a fine way to frame the discussion of how ideas are accepted or rejected in certain contexts, but at the end of the day this kind of consensus is not often discussed in sources as much as it is just a fact of life. I would hazard to guess that this is the case here.


 * POINT 2: You are making some distinctions here that I think are correct though perhaps not indicative of the full picture. For example, although quantum fluctuations are invoked as seeds from inflation, this really only gives us a gaussian random field (or, at least, a field that only diverges from gaussianity in subtle ways). While seeded structure requires a gaussian random field to explain observations and the uncertainty principle predicts a gaussian random field, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that quantum mechanics is vital to this discussion. In many ways, the particle zoo is more dependent on the details of quantum mechanics as, in principle, full treatments of the Fermi-Dirac Equation, for example, can be ignored to get a gaussian random field. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is enough. But more than that, I think you are incorrect in claiming that fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer, and plasma physics do not differentiate between plasma cosmology and standard explanations. When you look at extensions to the largest cosmological simulations available, the reliance on these general "fields of investigation" is unmistakeable. In contrast, plasma cosmology is not developed enough to take any of this into account.


 * That said, I think I'm in favor of simplification here. I think quantum mechanics may have been what threw me, so let me try to simplify even more to make the points clearer. Let's keep working together to come to a consensus version, if we can.


 * jps (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits of 25th April 2017
Based on you being a significant editor and contributor here, I have given a direct response to your recent multiple edits on the Plasma cosmology article. Your edits while appreciated have drastically changed the implicit meanings gained by hard-worked consensus. These recent changes are either incorrect or divisive for the following reasons. I'm happy to be corrected, but most of these changes do need to be supported here. I have reverted this texts for the following reasons.


 * 1) "plasma scaling' is not the central based of plasma cosmology, and changing this on the image caption. The change made here never said originally this.


 * 2) Plasma cosmology today is a non-standard cosmology" Saying 'Today' is absolutely irrelevant, as plasma cosmology is an antiquated theory rejected simply on the facts and physical observations. The statement is supposed to say what plasma cosmology is not based on support or rejection.


 * 3) The idea of plasma scaling was real was tentatively suggested by Alfven, which he likely did not believe. The requirement for this to be true, was that the magnetic fields required an infinite universe, and the universe expansion and background radiation immediately disproved it. If the universe were actually infinite, then so were the fields, ultimately showing the plasma scaling was not true.


 * 4) Saying "When it was being developed, Plasma Cosmology was one of three competing theories in cosmology, the others being the Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory" is completely untrue, because the proviso required an infinite universe, which the Steady State and Big Bang ultimately reject. A Steady State would require immediate generation of magnetic fields - no evidence - and worst the scaling would not work.


 * 5) Actually no cited paper has appeared on plasma cosmology after 1992-94. Falsely stated that no paper has appeared in the literature "since the mid-2000s." The given text is plainly wrong, and saying "Very few papers" was just a needed compromise.


 * 6) Saying "alluding to plasma being the dominant state of the baryonic matter in the universe as well as being about plasma cosmology." Is plainly nonsense. The statement has been already said, and the terms 'plasma cosmology' and 'plasma universe' aim only to explain plasma in the universe.


 * 7) MHD has nothing to do with plasma cosmology, adding 'plasma' is just confusing.


 * 8) Talking about the Debye length) relates to plasma cosmology how? This relates more to the diffusion of plasma particles to maintain the magnetic field. It is to do with particle density not Debye length which applies mostly to fluids, and, even for the intergalactic medium is 1 electron per cubic metre. Worst, even Alfven knew: "In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized." This is why plasma scaling was tentative - even in Alfven's POV. The weakness is the coherence of the supporting magnetic fields, which science has shown in the intergalactic medium to be more likely incoherent - killing any suggestion plasmas play dominate roles in the universe n the largest scales. Plain fact, which the supporters just ignore. (Ask what the field strength is on these scales and they say nothing and have no answers at all!


 * 9) ""metagalaxy" as they called it, an earlier term to distinguish between the universe and the Milky Way galaxy.", but this was not termed by Alfvén–Klein model. It dates back to 1925, and derives form the word 'metagalactic' meaning everything beyond the Milky Way or, confusingly, all, in fact, every single galaxy in the universe. (This is based on when it was realised the Milky Way was another galaxy.) This statement is plainly wrong.

For these reasons I have reverted these edits. So please provide evidence to support these views and gain consensus. Before making such future edits, especially as much energy has been expelled to explain plasma cosmology and keep a non-contentious stable version, please use the talk page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. Well, let's see ... One of my changes which you reverted was the deletion of the following paragraph in the section "Comparison to mainstream astrophysics":

"Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology."


 * Since the first sentence in the article's introduction says: "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology", it is beyond obvious that "Plasma cosmology supporters ... dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang" and it doesn't need saying. Saying it demonstrates POV bias and makes the article read like a blog. Another problem with the paragraph is "dispute ... even the expanding universe". This is a straw man argument, because no credible scientist, even proponents of the steady state theory such as Fred Hoyle, disputed the expansion of the universe. Indeed the article itself in the section "Alfvén–Klein cosmology" says: "The pockets, or bubbles, of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe". So pretty clear that plasma cosmologists didn't dispute the expanding universe and this argument is a straw man argument. Or not?


 * So can you revert your reversion and delete this very problematic paragraph? Thanks.


 * A minor issue is your point :3) above and repeated below, my emphasis on the word "tentatively" which I'd deleted in the article itself and which you reverted:

"The idea of plasma scaling was real was tentatively suggested by Alfven, which he likely did not believe. The requirement for this to be true, was that the magnetic fields required an infinite universe, and the universe expansion and background radiation immediately disproved it."


 * It wasn't a tentative suggestion by Alfven, and since you've added the adjective, you do need to provide a source which says he was tentative. Furthermore, the second sentence of your point suggests your reason for reverting "tentatively" was OR, since you said "magnetic fields required an infinite universe" ... which you think means therefore plasma scaling can't be true and therefore Alfven couldn't believe it? However, there is a wiki article on Plasma scaling which explains it is a real, observed scientific phenomenon, regardless of whether or not the universe is infinite.Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry. This is not the way to gain consensus. None of this is my POV, which is suggesting I'm avoiding the needed good faith. Suggesting OR here is frankly insulting, and your points regarding plasma scaling show me significant problems understanding the subject matter . You are painting that plasma cosmology was somehow had an equivalence to either the Steady State or Big Bang theory, but it was only ever considered as a minor postulate. PC lasted a few years and was dumped because of the evidence did not support it.
 * It is a non-standard cosmology in that it: "...is any physical cosmological model of the universe that was, or still is, proposed as an alternative to the then-current standard model of cosmology. The term non-standard is applied to any theory that does not conform to the scientific consensus."
 * Where is the current scientific consensus here? (No astrophysical or cosmological cites have really appeared since late 1980s.) PC dismissal is mostly undocumented because it is so transparently wrong to any cosmologist.
 * Plasma cosmology whole basis was not only pillared just on Plasma scaling, but was only later used to possibly explain existence of magnetic field in intergalactic space and how the magnetic fields could be supported on cosmic scales. As science goes, there is NO EVIDENCE of this at all. This is mostly as the cosmological fields are almost certainly incoherent and there is not enough plasma / electrons to maintain the necessary currents. I.e. 105 to 1019 amps. So where are they? Sorry Alfven just added this as an idea, which appear in this paper "Plasma universe.", Physica Scripta, T18, 20-28 (1987). He actually says; "There are good reasons to suppose that the basic properties of plasmas are the same everywhere." (His italics.) the says the extrapolation is a kind of "knowledge expansion". To me this supports the idea was actually "tentative" meaning "not certain or fixed / provisional."
 * Considering the meager evidence about plasma cosmology, most of the research is both old and antiquated, explains why there is no modern published research that even contemplates what you say here. (If there was it would appear in the article!)
 * Look. Plasma scaling is an idea made around the 1930s and 1940s, but was never implied to be beyond any magnetosphere. All Alfven suggested that it could possibly be greatly ramped up to cosmological scales, and that this might be testable. It was immediately understood if true the universe would have to be infinite. or "First, plasma adherents assume that the ionized universe is infinite in both age and size. That is, the universe is countless trillions of years old, and it will never end'.", and Alfven knew this too. I.e. He actually said; "'There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Quoted here
 * About cosmology, Alfven in the same 1987 Physica Scripta paper said this too "Cosmology. In the plasma universe the big bang hypothesis will meet serious difficulty." pg.27. (No research here.)
 * NOTE: It is amazing just how little is said about cosmology in these early plasma cosmology papers, as the details are so scant and scattered. Its proof ultimately relies on blantent speculation, which can be readily and quickly dismissed by astrophysical observations. (See this Alfven 1990 paper and Fig. 5 pg. 7. minus the plasma scaling expressed however in a different but obscured format!) Using words like 'tentatively' here are just being kind. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To answer this statement by you: "One of my changes which you reverted was the deletion of the following paragraph in the section "Comparison to mainstream astrophysics": "Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology."
 * I actually agree with this, but saying it just stirs up the hornet's nest. Much of this issue is this is open opinion, and is not objective to plasma cosmology itself. Scientifically, we do not know enough about intergalactic space to 100% show that plasmas and their generated fields exist or don't exist, even though the evidence is stacked is so far against it. Nearly all theories are plausible, though it is certainly in a range of degree of certainty. For example, Alfven once speculated on the universe being divided into two or more parts of matter and antimatter. Yet today, this cannot be completely excluded based on means or lack of any observational proof. (We cannot even say that the laws of physics are the same in different parts of the universe!)
 * In science ideas are speculation just in the hope of making some testable experiment for evidence contrary to theory or knowledge. This is why the Introduction properly says: "Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. " Surely that is enough to say without having to face the constant barge of historical attacks this controversial article seems to generate Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but your reply here is one thing, your changes to the article page another. You did say above: "Before making such future edits, especially as much energy has been expelled to explain plasma cosmology and keep a non-contentious stable version, please use the talk page." So why not take your own advice? I have reverted most of your changes, partly because there was nothing wrong with the original, partly because errors in references and in grammar had crept in with your changes, and partly because you didn't use this talk page to seek consensus.


 * But regarding your reply above, thank you for saying "Sorry. This is not the way to gain consensus. None of this is my POV". Let's try for consensus. For my part, I would like to say that I do not think Plasma Cosmology today is a viable alternative theory to the big bang theory. However, it is a historically important theory about the origin of the universe, and that is why I think it should be in wikipedia, and without all the innuendos dogging it at every turn.


 * Regarding that dubious paragraph: "Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology." I think you are saying above that you agree that this para should indeed be cut, but that deleting it would stir up a hornet's nest? And later you say the introduction has enough about the status of plasma cosmology? I fully agree with those statements and do indeed think the introduction is actually pretty good in alerting people to this not being mainstream science.


 * If I have understood you properly, we have consensus in that it would be best to delete the dubious para, but that you are worried about a barrage of attacks. I think let's go for it - to not edit because we are afraid of the attacks ... well, let's just do it and face the attacks :) Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Now Very Positive Comment. "If I have understood you properly, we have consensus in that it would be best to delete the dubious para, but that you are worried about a barrage of attacks. I think let's go for it - to not edit because we are afraid of the attacks ... well, let's just do it and face the attacks :)' Thanks I do 110% agree! Let's delete it! I mistakenly thought you support this. I been so concentrated on defending the truth, it has distorted my views in having to edit this page - now nine years ago. Really sorry for being so cowardly here! Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the discussion and glad we were able to resolve things. Dubious para has now been deleted. All the best :) Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated authors to plasma cosmology
The article says under Alfvén–Klein cosmology

"In the 1960s, the theory behind plasma cosmology was introduced by Alfvén, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his other (unrelated) plasma work on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), along with Oskar Klein and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar. "

The introduction says: "Some theoretical concepts about plasma cosmology originated with Hannes Alfvén,.." but both Oskar Klein and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar are said to be originators in the main text. They are only associated with the Alfvén–Klein cosmology (Alfvén & Fälthammar in 1963 says nothing related to plasma cosmology at all, but did to the metagalaxy), but were not the originators of plasma cosmology. Aarghdvaark had incorrectlyreversed this edit here

Worse, the given reference of the book by Kragh (1996) is totally unrelated to the given statement, where plasma cosmology appear once in the book on pg. 384. Alfvén–Klein cosmology is discussed on the given pages.

I therefore have removed the subsequent names from this text, but moved Kragh (1996) reference onto the next article line which sort of refers to 'metagalaxy' Ref. 8 is moved to verify Alfven's PC theory. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's all good. Thanks for the edits. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Electric Universe
Electric Universe redirects here but is not mentioned. Can the article clarify if Electric Universe is a synonym for PC or how they relate. - Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Searching the archives for this page it seems there once was a separate Electric Universe page. If plasma cosmology was the historic concept (now abandoned) and Electric Universe (EU) is its current manifestation - surely we should at least have a section here on EU, if not a separate page summarising EU and how much support it might have. ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that describes the relationship between the two, I wouldn't object to adding a sentence or so. As for support, both ideas (if they are even distinct) are very far out of the mainstream and have zero support as viable models of the universe.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * “both ideas (if they are even distinct) are very far out of the mainstream and have zero support as viable models of the universe.” Actually they have lots of support, not that the mainstream and corporations, especially corporate owned websites like Wikipedia itself will admit it, just look at ThunderboltsProject. 3:17 15 February 2021

Uniformity
I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.137.227 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On Wikipedia, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, climate change and germ theory of disease and gravity. None of those are supported by all scientists, but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views as supported by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Articles relating to Young Earth creationism have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Articles relating to Flat Earth have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Is there any reason why this article doesn't also have "pseudoscience" in its lede?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Do relevant reliable sources describe it as pseudoscience? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * One problem is that it's so silly, there really isn't much mainstream commentary on it. The best you'd be able to find are probably blog posts or discussions on science bulletin boards, neither of which are RS for wikipedia. It absolutely is pseudoscience, but finding a cite for that might be hard because nobody except the cranks pays any attention to it. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd have to suggest that it is better that Wikipedia contributors don't decide for themselves whether to call something 'pseudoscience', if they can't find a source for it, but think it applies anyway. That seems to be the way policy works. What policy doesn't prevent, of course, is making it blindingly obvious to readers that this particular 'cosmology' doesn't accord with actual science. I'd say that was more of a priority than worrying about labels. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Because plasma cosmology (as variously developed by Alfvén, Peratt, Lerner, et al.) whilst incomplete, non-mainstream and possibly even qualifies as a bit fringe is certainly not pseudoscience, in the same way as unscientific nonsense like flat earth or creationism certainly is. At no point does plasma cosmology ask you to believe in God, it is an attempt to use standard physics to describe the universe but starting from different assumptions based on the behaviours of plasma, rather than what gravity might do with a bunch of inert gas. Perhaps you are thinking of the Electric Universe folks? Now there's a popcorn show... Jon (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But "Electric Universe (physics)" is a wikilink redirect to here. Therefore the casual user (I am such in this context) may reasonably assume that P.C. and E.U. are very closely related and intertwined.  So could I request that those who know more about these topics and their seemingly close inter-relationship give some thought to the redirect leading people here to find out about E.U.?  Thanks. (By the way, the simple "Electric Universe" is an article about  music band, so that might complicate disambiguation things a little!)  Feline Hymnic (talk)


 * If the Electric Universe thing is something unrelated, there shouldn't be a redirect here. And if they are related, per reliable sources, the article needs to explain what the Electric Universe is, and why it is relevant to plasma cosmology, citing those same sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably. The history (quite short) of the redirect page itself includes a pointer to discussion way back in 2015 about a potential separate EU article that seems never to have happened: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_4.  Might it be time for another RfD? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As I've noted above, there is almost no mainstream coverage of these topics. Most of what you'll find online is the cranks and creationists, who alternately combine various aspects of EU/PC, or who claim that PC is the "real" scientific idea while EU is the nonsense one, because Alfven won a Nobel prize so he's really smart. The Wikipedia page on the Electric Universe (which was a total mess) was deleted in 2007, after a few different deletion discussions, due it being an entirely fringe topic with no reliable sources available. Most of the previous proponents of EU/PC on Wikipedia have either left, or been banned or topic banned (see the very long talk archives here from the last decade+). Plasma cosmology is of very slight historical interest, but otherwise completely WP:FRINGE: good luck finding reliable sources! - Parejkoj (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Electric Universe (physics)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Electric Universe (physics) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Better delineate "plasma cosmology" and "Alfvén–Klein cosmology"
It seems to me that the article does not clearly describe the relationship between "plasma cosmology" and "Alfven-Klein cosmology". It introduces AKC in the AKC section without stating any relation to PC, then discusses Alfven's and Peratt's "plasma universe" in the "PC and the study of galaxies" section as another distinct model (but I don't see the difference between Alfven's and Peratt's models and AKC). At a cursory literature search, I can't find any sources describing any PC models other than AKC. So wouldn't it make more sense for the article to be titled "Alfven-Klein cosmology"? Or alternatively, there should be a note in the lede to the effect of "the most common plasma cosmology model is the Alfvén–Klein cosmology, as described by Hannes Alfvén and Oscar Klein. The term 'plasma cosmology' often refers specifically to Alfvén–Klein cosmology." Either way, I think the AKC section should be renamed "History", since all three sections seem to specifically talk about AKC. –Justin Kunimune (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Plasma cosmology was developed in Sweden by Hannes Alfven and his group. It included much more than is talked about in the article, as it was about all plasmas in astrophysics. This is what Alfven was getting at with his 'triple jump', that plasma in the laboratory behaves the same as plasma in magnetospheres, and indeed as interstellar and intergalactic plasmas. As an example, the current astrophysics of the solar wind and the Northern Lights is 100% plasma cosmology; in the 1970s the Scandinavian theory completely overthrew the old UK/American standard theory which had rejected the idea of the solar wind, see Birkeland current. Plasma cosmology at all scales was supported by Scandinavian scientists like Alfven, Birkeland and Klein. Obviously, due to Alfven's foundational work on plasmas, the work for which he was awarded the Nobel prize, any mainstream work today on any space plasma is based on his work and is essentially continuing plasma cosmology, so work on the solar atmosphere is 100% plasma cosmology.
 * Later, the American Anthony Peratt worked with Alfven on developing plasma cosmology theories about galaxy evolution. Plasma cosmology became problematic because historically its theories about galaxies provided an explanation for the observed Galaxy rotation curves, and thus an alternative to the idea of dark matter.
 * Historically plasma cosmology was a steady state theory, as the Steady-state model of Fred Hoyle and his group (note the interesting comment in the lede to the Steady-state model article that it "enjoyed some minority[citation needed] support" - in fact until the CMBR was discovered it was 50/50! The plasma scientist Eric Lerner wrote the book "The Big Bang Never Happened", and he still supports the steady state theory. Personally I don't, but I recognize there are a lot of problems with the current big bang model - why did inflation happen? More difficult: why did it stop? And the size of the largest structures in the universe seem to be too big. Anyway, food for thought. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If "plasma cosmology" does refer to all plasmas in astrophysics, then the page needs to be rewritten to reflect that, but is the term really used that way? The sources I've found seem to only talk about "plasma cosmology" with respect to large structure formation.  Also, I feel like the solar atmosphere doesn't generally count as cosmology; it's certainly plasma physics and astrophysics, but "cosmology" usually only refers to studies of very large-scale things.


 * More pragmatically, if "plasma cosmology" does encompass all space plasmas, I don't see how this page's scope differs from Astrophysical plasma. This is why I think it would be best to rename this article.  Since it currently almost exclusively talks about Alfven-Klein cosmology, we can just rename it to that, and maybe add a "see also" link to Astrophysical plasma. Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If you wan to rewrite this page to just focus on the Alfven-Klein cosmology as an item of historical interest, that would probably be a good refocusing. The problem is that there are very few reliable sources that discuss it. Go back through the archives (archive 11 has a *lot* of discussion from 2012 that's still relevant) to see how this has gone in the past; Aarghdvaark tries to make it sound like it's become mainstream, practicing astronomers say "nobody cares about Plasma Cosmology", someone notes that Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe are difficult to disentangle in the handful of sources we do have, and all of the actually relevant references just get older and older since nobody's doing research on Plasma Cosmology, because it's an abandoned dead-end. The article really could use a gutting and re-write to remove all the WP:OR that tries to claim that every mention of magnetic fields or plasmas in the astronomy literature implies that Plasma Cosmology is now mainstream.
 * (UPDATE): having just gone through the article, I think it's in a better state than I feared: now that I've reverted Aarghdvaark's attempts at mainstream-izing it, I think it does a decent job of putting Alfven and Perrat's views in a proper historical context. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)