![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect, ScienceApologist may be familiar with mainstream astronomy, and have worked alot on the article, but is no expert on plasma cosmology. The errors in the article are extensive. (a) Alfven did not propose "that the universe was an ionized equal mixture of matter and anti-matter", an idea which is dervived from Klein and Dirac. Aflven only explained how they might coexist, and coined the word "ambiplasma" (b) Plasma cosmology has not been rejected, as is evident from the signatories of the http://cosmologystatement.org/ though particular parts of it have been criticised, and it is not accepted. (c) It is inaccurate to say that "The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds" (which was published in 1966, and ignores the 1962 paper by Alfven and Klein, and ), and ignores Alfven's papers from the 1930 and 1940s (d) Klein-Alfven cosmology is not synonymous with Plasma Cosmology. (e) The section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" has just one reference that mentions plasma cosmology making the whole section opinionated unverifiable original research, that largely promotes "mainstream" cosmology. (f) There is no such thing as a "non-standard cosmology", and the reference does not refer to Plasma Cosmology in this way, and I know of no source that does.
The article had a genuine expert on the subject, Eric Lerner, who has published both peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and a book, and writes impartial science articles for a living. Statements of fact in his banning offered no examples of wrong-doing or misrepresentation when contributing to this article. -- 69.42.49.67 ( talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you had an expert, and then you booted him. Which seems to be the usual course of events when someone who is merely knowledgeable of the topic at hand crosses swords with someone who is knowledgeable of Wikipedia administrivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.81.41 ( talk) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately all the experts relevent to plasma cosmology are banned from this wiki. Its a tragic situation at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.3.106 ( talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the rest of the people in here. Banning Lerner, a published plasma cosmologist, from editing the article and then altering the article to fill it full of complete misrepresentations is among the most grotesque acts of scientific censorship I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia to-date. The acts of ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson are deplorable and are unbecoming of professional scientists who should know better than to act out of personal dislike for a theory.-- 158.61.151.200 ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Having read the arbitration, I do not understand why Lerner was banned. He was an expert who currently works in the field and was banned for this? This article is very opinionated and seems to be intended to discredit the idea of a plasma cosmology. ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson seem to believe that they own this article and shall be the ones to approve any information in this article. Both were found to be edit warring, but were not banned? I have learned quite a bit from Wikipedia and was very disappointed, having found this article. It lacks objectivity and has fallen victim to politics over science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.219.10 ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. Whilst not a cosmologist nor a plasma physicist I have restructured the article to, IMHO, fairly represent the case for plasma cosmology whilst stressing it is a minority scientific POV and showing where mainstream cosmology takes issue with it. In the main these mainstream counter issues have been collected together, rather than letting them disrupt the plasma cosmology arguments. The call for an expert was actually very odd, as Lerner (who is mentioned in the article) is the obvious expert but has been banned from editing these pages, and in the talk section below on 'Astronomer weighing in' it seemed an expert on cosmology was going to contribute - only to discover the self-attributed expert was hopelessly biased (see section below 'Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers').
The point about subject experts not being allowed to contribute on articles in their subject area is perhaps a policy issue for Wikipedia to consider in general, since it clearly differentiates Wikipedia from Scholarpedia where ONLY subject experts are allowed to contribute. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit, adding a subsection Main Differences to the section on Comparison to mainstream cosmology, is highly problematical. It leans very strongly to Lerner's flavor of PC, although that of Alfven is more significant and there have been a few others along the way as well. It makes statements like "Big Bang Theory: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.", which is wrong both in terms of the difference between an assumption and a conclusion from observations, and in terms of the content. That is, there are seriously discussed BB cosmologies that do not have a beginning in time (evolution in time, yes), and most mainstream cosmologists do not believe there will be an end to time. The points are phrased as predictions, even where the issue has been long-ago settled by observations. I did not revert it immediately because it may be possible to refactor it in an acceptable way, but I do not have time now to work on it. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"Those that banned Lerner should themselves be banned for fraud." -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.165.133 ( talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit entails a relatively large number of changes by an anonymous editor. Some may be OK, but for others I am less certain. Would the editor in question (or any supporter of the edits) please explain them here? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (For the record, these changes were reverted shortly after by Dougweller. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 08:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC))
Looks to me like there is a lot of POV writing in this article, and in particular, from the point of view that "real scientists don't look at plasma cosmology." It concentrates primarily on the work of one man, and uses POV weasle-words to belittle him. Very poorly written, and uses a lot of double-speak in order to "amaze the natives" so to speak. Very condescending, and to the writer, I will offer this advice: people are tired of double-speak and condescending tone from so-called experts on cosmology. Either come up with something that makes sense or go get a real job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.223.176 ( talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be drowning in undertones of bias against plasma cosmology, repeatedly substituting praise for the Big Bang theory instead of actual article relevant explanations of Plasma Cosmology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.115.35 ( talk) 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the grounds for banning Lerner from editing this article? I thought he had some knowledge about both PC and BBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.45.227 ( talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I make no claim to any sort of cosmological expertise; instead being firmly in the layman realm. However, it might prove constructive to reorganize this article, for readability purposes. For the sake of argument (and to provide a starting point for discussion), I suggest the following organization:
199.2.126.188 ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As the Big Bang Theory is drowning in its fudge factors, it must be possible to give this alternative theory some credance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.131.189 ( talk) 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe thats because its what you call "mainstream science." That is the point of what he, and others, are saying. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.180.8.114 (
talk)
00:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales. . . " which links to the 'Big Bang' article and implies that Einstein prescribed to this theory, while it is well known that he maintained throughout life his disbelief in the existence of black holes, big bang, etc. Please explain, or make the change, as I am not versed in the art of wiki. 67.180.8.114 ( talk) 00:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not had time to do more than watch this article out of the corner of my eye, but I had the impression that most of Aarghdvaark's edits were improving the article. I have serious reservations, though about some recent additions, in particular the sections Plasma cosmology#Joining of space plasma filaments and Plasma cosmology#Galaxy formation, active galaxy nuclei and galaxy rotation curves and the first paragraph of Plasma cosmology#Comparison to the standard model of Big Bang cosmology.
To start with that last one:
I'll remove this paragraph now, but the other sections will also have to be critically examined. Art Carlson ( talk) 08:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC) And my answers in italic above Aarghdvaark ( talk) 08:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This section is rather confusing, and I'm not sure it is entirely correct. Is it claiming anything more than the pinch effect is happening? The diagram gives the impression that the filaments start out running parallel and then twist up as they come together. You can't create helicity out of nothing, so there is a problem with that. If the filaments are supposed to be force-free from the beginning, then the picture is also misleading. Galaxies come in a bewildering variety of shapes, so the statement that experiments and simulations "mimic the shape of real galaxies" is rather empty if one doesn't do into quantitative detail. What is the message of this section supposed to be? Art Carlson ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? This is my only account (other than User:Tomtomn00 Bot I [bot], User:TomNVandBot [bot] and User:Sir Tommy [doppelganger]). I reverted the edits as content blanking, nothing else — using popups, and was unable to see the edit summary. Also, the edit summaries at the time gave me no sign of what the IP was trying to do, and did not link to the talk page until the final one. Also, my editing times are different to Aarghdvaark's, as I am from England, not Australia, and spend my day (8:30-3:55) at school, unless it is a half term, holiday or weekend — which it is not. -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted as blanking, nothing else. Thanks! -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article asserts: "Alfvén's view of plasma's role in the universe differs from the standard view. Chief among these is his assertion that electromagnetic forces are at least as important as gravity not only for star systems, but, beyond that, for galaxies and even to the largest distance scales."
But the quote given says something totally different: "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the [ratio of the magnetic force to the force of gravity] ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized."
No mention of galaxies, let alone "the largest distance scales". No mention of stars or star systems. I'm going to wait a few days, but unless there's a direct quote from Alfven explicitly stating the (patently absurd) idea that EM forces are relevant to the orbits or motion of stars, that is going to be removed. I did a partial search of that reference (Alfven's book), and found nothing remotely like that. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As promised in the section above ("Don't go too far"), I've been digging around in the basement - it's not pleasant. The suggestion was I should "consider SA's arguments for de-emphasizing the more recent (and less notable) versions of plasma cosmology". I think this is found at Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8#New focus for the article.
The initial proposal by Science Apologist started off:
Note that 'Plasma astrophysics' here seems to mean something other than plasma cosmology, in that plasma astrophysics is now mainstream so it cannot be plasma cosmology. There was an old debate on what plasma cosmology should be about. The current article says "Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces". Which I think is accurate as a short summary (I don't agree with that definition but that is neither here nor there). In the old debate it was noted that:
Which is a bit too detailed, but the main point from this is that plasma cosmology is not just ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is the same point that some contributors made at the time in opposition to SA. Neither ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology are actively supported any more, so to equate plasma cosmology with either of them would then mean it could be disregarded since no-one actively supported it anymore. But I think plasma cosmology means that electrodynamic forces need to be considered as much as gravity, at all levels on the cosmic hierarchy. Note this is different from the actual definition, but the definition we use needs to be sourced from plasma cosmologists. I think the consequence of this is that Perrats's work should be brought forward and mentioned in a separate section rather than in a history section alongside ambiplasma. To remove the newer stuff would mean that plasma cosmology was an obsolete theory because it had no new stuff. I think the present structure is OK? Aarghdvaark ( talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The article states " Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces." Nothing in reference 4 supports this - it never mentions forces at all, and it attributes gravity a very important role.
Later in the lead, the article asserts: "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity, explains the origin and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales, relying instead on the further development and application of classical mechanics and electrodynamics to astrophysical plasmas." This must be cited, and appears to directly contradict reference 4. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There's been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Plasma_cosmology_linking on fringe science and plasma cosmology. Fringe science can cover a lot of things, but I think the conclusion reached is that whilst plasma cosmology is fringe science, it is fringe science in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. valid but non-mainstream science. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have listed before here the papers by Lerner and others that should be allowed here. There are over 20 papers published in reputable astronomy journals that are missing from this page, and not a single peer reviewed refutation of the models has been proposed to date.
In fact, most modern references to some of Lerner and Peratts ideas seem to now be getting supportive citations in the literature, as people have begun to realize that cosmology as a science needs fresh ideas and to seriously consider more seriously some of these older theories. A lot of people are getting bored with the dead of of BBT, which as it stands has ended up merely tying up loose ends in theories, re-fining decimal point accuracies, and some are getting fed up of the fact that many observations now actually totally contradict the original predictions that it was predicated on. Thus, its predictive power has faded to nothing.
I was about to revert this edit by Aarghdvaark on the grounds that it didn't make any sense. Then I realized the original paragraph didn't make any sense either. What did Alfven (or Klein) actually say? (Or has this section been polluted by Lerner?) ... Checking the history, I see that it was actually Aarghdvaark who first changed the paragraph. I will revert to the Revision as of 09:19, 2012 April 15. Some of the edits made since then might be good, but I'm not sure the result would be coherent if I only change one part.
The version I am reverting from is this:
My concerns include these points:
Art Carlson ( talk) 07:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect, ScienceApologist may be familiar with mainstream astronomy, and have worked alot on the article, but is no expert on plasma cosmology. The errors in the article are extensive. (a) Alfven did not propose "that the universe was an ionized equal mixture of matter and anti-matter", an idea which is dervived from Klein and Dirac. Aflven only explained how they might coexist, and coined the word "ambiplasma" (b) Plasma cosmology has not been rejected, as is evident from the signatories of the http://cosmologystatement.org/ though particular parts of it have been criticised, and it is not accepted. (c) It is inaccurate to say that "The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds" (which was published in 1966, and ignores the 1962 paper by Alfven and Klein, and ), and ignores Alfven's papers from the 1930 and 1940s (d) Klein-Alfven cosmology is not synonymous with Plasma Cosmology. (e) The section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" has just one reference that mentions plasma cosmology making the whole section opinionated unverifiable original research, that largely promotes "mainstream" cosmology. (f) There is no such thing as a "non-standard cosmology", and the reference does not refer to Plasma Cosmology in this way, and I know of no source that does.
The article had a genuine expert on the subject, Eric Lerner, who has published both peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and a book, and writes impartial science articles for a living. Statements of fact in his banning offered no examples of wrong-doing or misrepresentation when contributing to this article. -- 69.42.49.67 ( talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you had an expert, and then you booted him. Which seems to be the usual course of events when someone who is merely knowledgeable of the topic at hand crosses swords with someone who is knowledgeable of Wikipedia administrivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.81.41 ( talk) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately all the experts relevent to plasma cosmology are banned from this wiki. Its a tragic situation at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.3.106 ( talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the rest of the people in here. Banning Lerner, a published plasma cosmologist, from editing the article and then altering the article to fill it full of complete misrepresentations is among the most grotesque acts of scientific censorship I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia to-date. The acts of ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson are deplorable and are unbecoming of professional scientists who should know better than to act out of personal dislike for a theory.-- 158.61.151.200 ( talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Having read the arbitration, I do not understand why Lerner was banned. He was an expert who currently works in the field and was banned for this? This article is very opinionated and seems to be intended to discredit the idea of a plasma cosmology. ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson seem to believe that they own this article and shall be the ones to approve any information in this article. Both were found to be edit warring, but were not banned? I have learned quite a bit from Wikipedia and was very disappointed, having found this article. It lacks objectivity and has fallen victim to politics over science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.219.10 ( talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. Whilst not a cosmologist nor a plasma physicist I have restructured the article to, IMHO, fairly represent the case for plasma cosmology whilst stressing it is a minority scientific POV and showing where mainstream cosmology takes issue with it. In the main these mainstream counter issues have been collected together, rather than letting them disrupt the plasma cosmology arguments. The call for an expert was actually very odd, as Lerner (who is mentioned in the article) is the obvious expert but has been banned from editing these pages, and in the talk section below on 'Astronomer weighing in' it seemed an expert on cosmology was going to contribute - only to discover the self-attributed expert was hopelessly biased (see section below 'Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers').
The point about subject experts not being allowed to contribute on articles in their subject area is perhaps a policy issue for Wikipedia to consider in general, since it clearly differentiates Wikipedia from Scholarpedia where ONLY subject experts are allowed to contribute. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit, adding a subsection Main Differences to the section on Comparison to mainstream cosmology, is highly problematical. It leans very strongly to Lerner's flavor of PC, although that of Alfven is more significant and there have been a few others along the way as well. It makes statements like "Big Bang Theory: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.", which is wrong both in terms of the difference between an assumption and a conclusion from observations, and in terms of the content. That is, there are seriously discussed BB cosmologies that do not have a beginning in time (evolution in time, yes), and most mainstream cosmologists do not believe there will be an end to time. The points are phrased as predictions, even where the issue has been long-ago settled by observations. I did not revert it immediately because it may be possible to refactor it in an acceptable way, but I do not have time now to work on it. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
"Those that banned Lerner should themselves be banned for fraud." -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.165.133 ( talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This edit entails a relatively large number of changes by an anonymous editor. Some may be OK, but for others I am less certain. Would the editor in question (or any supporter of the edits) please explain them here? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (For the record, these changes were reverted shortly after by Dougweller. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 08:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC))
Looks to me like there is a lot of POV writing in this article, and in particular, from the point of view that "real scientists don't look at plasma cosmology." It concentrates primarily on the work of one man, and uses POV weasle-words to belittle him. Very poorly written, and uses a lot of double-speak in order to "amaze the natives" so to speak. Very condescending, and to the writer, I will offer this advice: people are tired of double-speak and condescending tone from so-called experts on cosmology. Either come up with something that makes sense or go get a real job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.223.176 ( talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be drowning in undertones of bias against plasma cosmology, repeatedly substituting praise for the Big Bang theory instead of actual article relevant explanations of Plasma Cosmology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.115.35 ( talk) 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the grounds for banning Lerner from editing this article? I thought he had some knowledge about both PC and BBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.45.227 ( talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I make no claim to any sort of cosmological expertise; instead being firmly in the layman realm. However, it might prove constructive to reorganize this article, for readability purposes. For the sake of argument (and to provide a starting point for discussion), I suggest the following organization:
199.2.126.188 ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As the Big Bang Theory is drowning in its fudge factors, it must be possible to give this alternative theory some credance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.131.189 ( talk) 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe thats because its what you call "mainstream science." That is the point of what he, and others, are saying. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.180.8.114 (
talk)
00:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales. . . " which links to the 'Big Bang' article and implies that Einstein prescribed to this theory, while it is well known that he maintained throughout life his disbelief in the existence of black holes, big bang, etc. Please explain, or make the change, as I am not versed in the art of wiki. 67.180.8.114 ( talk) 00:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not had time to do more than watch this article out of the corner of my eye, but I had the impression that most of Aarghdvaark's edits were improving the article. I have serious reservations, though about some recent additions, in particular the sections Plasma cosmology#Joining of space plasma filaments and Plasma cosmology#Galaxy formation, active galaxy nuclei and galaxy rotation curves and the first paragraph of Plasma cosmology#Comparison to the standard model of Big Bang cosmology.
To start with that last one:
I'll remove this paragraph now, but the other sections will also have to be critically examined. Art Carlson ( talk) 08:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC) And my answers in italic above Aarghdvaark ( talk) 08:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This section is rather confusing, and I'm not sure it is entirely correct. Is it claiming anything more than the pinch effect is happening? The diagram gives the impression that the filaments start out running parallel and then twist up as they come together. You can't create helicity out of nothing, so there is a problem with that. If the filaments are supposed to be force-free from the beginning, then the picture is also misleading. Galaxies come in a bewildering variety of shapes, so the statement that experiments and simulations "mimic the shape of real galaxies" is rather empty if one doesn't do into quantitative detail. What is the message of this section supposed to be? Art Carlson ( talk) 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? This is my only account (other than User:Tomtomn00 Bot I [bot], User:TomNVandBot [bot] and User:Sir Tommy [doppelganger]). I reverted the edits as content blanking, nothing else — using popups, and was unable to see the edit summary. Also, the edit summaries at the time gave me no sign of what the IP was trying to do, and did not link to the talk page until the final one. Also, my editing times are different to Aarghdvaark's, as I am from England, not Australia, and spend my day (8:30-3:55) at school, unless it is a half term, holiday or weekend — which it is not. -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just reverted as blanking, nothing else. Thanks! -- Tomtomn00 ( talk • contributions) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The article asserts: "Alfvén's view of plasma's role in the universe differs from the standard view. Chief among these is his assertion that electromagnetic forces are at least as important as gravity not only for star systems, but, beyond that, for galaxies and even to the largest distance scales."
But the quote given says something totally different: "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the [ratio of the magnetic force to the force of gravity] ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized."
No mention of galaxies, let alone "the largest distance scales". No mention of stars or star systems. I'm going to wait a few days, but unless there's a direct quote from Alfven explicitly stating the (patently absurd) idea that EM forces are relevant to the orbits or motion of stars, that is going to be removed. I did a partial search of that reference (Alfven's book), and found nothing remotely like that. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
As promised in the section above ("Don't go too far"), I've been digging around in the basement - it's not pleasant. The suggestion was I should "consider SA's arguments for de-emphasizing the more recent (and less notable) versions of plasma cosmology". I think this is found at Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8#New focus for the article.
The initial proposal by Science Apologist started off:
Note that 'Plasma astrophysics' here seems to mean something other than plasma cosmology, in that plasma astrophysics is now mainstream so it cannot be plasma cosmology. There was an old debate on what plasma cosmology should be about. The current article says "Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces". Which I think is accurate as a short summary (I don't agree with that definition but that is neither here nor there). In the old debate it was noted that:
Which is a bit too detailed, but the main point from this is that plasma cosmology is not just ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is the same point that some contributors made at the time in opposition to SA. Neither ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology are actively supported any more, so to equate plasma cosmology with either of them would then mean it could be disregarded since no-one actively supported it anymore. But I think plasma cosmology means that electrodynamic forces need to be considered as much as gravity, at all levels on the cosmic hierarchy. Note this is different from the actual definition, but the definition we use needs to be sourced from plasma cosmologists. I think the consequence of this is that Perrats's work should be brought forward and mentioned in a separate section rather than in a history section alongside ambiplasma. To remove the newer stuff would mean that plasma cosmology was an obsolete theory because it had no new stuff. I think the present structure is OK? Aarghdvaark ( talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The article states " Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces." Nothing in reference 4 supports this - it never mentions forces at all, and it attributes gravity a very important role.
Later in the lead, the article asserts: "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity, explains the origin and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales, relying instead on the further development and application of classical mechanics and electrodynamics to astrophysical plasmas." This must be cited, and appears to directly contradict reference 4. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There's been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Plasma_cosmology_linking on fringe science and plasma cosmology. Fringe science can cover a lot of things, but I think the conclusion reached is that whilst plasma cosmology is fringe science, it is fringe science in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. valid but non-mainstream science. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have listed before here the papers by Lerner and others that should be allowed here. There are over 20 papers published in reputable astronomy journals that are missing from this page, and not a single peer reviewed refutation of the models has been proposed to date.
In fact, most modern references to some of Lerner and Peratts ideas seem to now be getting supportive citations in the literature, as people have begun to realize that cosmology as a science needs fresh ideas and to seriously consider more seriously some of these older theories. A lot of people are getting bored with the dead of of BBT, which as it stands has ended up merely tying up loose ends in theories, re-fining decimal point accuracies, and some are getting fed up of the fact that many observations now actually totally contradict the original predictions that it was predicated on. Thus, its predictive power has faded to nothing.
I was about to revert this edit by Aarghdvaark on the grounds that it didn't make any sense. Then I realized the original paragraph didn't make any sense either. What did Alfven (or Klein) actually say? (Or has this section been polluted by Lerner?) ... Checking the history, I see that it was actually Aarghdvaark who first changed the paragraph. I will revert to the Revision as of 09:19, 2012 April 15. Some of the edits made since then might be good, but I'm not sure the result would be coherent if I only change one part.
The version I am reverting from is this:
My concerns include these points:
Art Carlson ( talk) 07:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)