![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey, Tommysun, would you clean up your edits?! Point 1, there are duplications that I can't make heads nor tails of. Point 2, they are much too long to figure out what your main points are. If you want us (or me, at least) to pay attention, pick your most important points and express them tersely. You can back them up if needed later, either in the Talk or, perhaps better, on a private page to which you can reference. -- Art Carlson 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
"Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background by invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas."
Are you telling me that this sentence is: a. grammatically correct? b. factually accurate? c. not misleading?
First of all, "large scale structure" is a singular "while evolution of the universe" is a universal. They should not be placed together the way that they are in the article. "From galasy formation to the cosmic microwave background", is a phrase and requires a comma, beginning and end. And "invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas" is referring to the laws of scale, which, I notice, is not even mentioned in the article. Tommysun 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the evolution of the universe, from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, and to large scale structure.
I question this statement, as it is, because it does not tell us if there are other explanations or not. Are these elaborated on in the text? And I do believe that using the phraseology "Adovocates of plasma cosmology" establishes a POV, and if so, then those advocates ought to be allowed to state their point of view. If not, then "advocates" should be removed.
Plasma was at work long before Maxwell formulated his equations.
I submit that ScienceApologist is pushing the big bang POV.
At least Eric is in the right place. SA, you really should go somewhere else, anywhere else, because it is clear that you do not belong here. Nor are you wanted here. Why don't you learn your science from those you admire. Science, contrary to popular belief, moves forward by working togethe. Competition and survival of the fittest in the human body is like cancer - tough to beat, devastating, and in the end, suicidal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun ( talk • contribs) .
So, I see the whole gang from the big bang pages is over here on the other side... What is a dark energy star? Quantized redshift means no expansion, no expansion means no big bang, no big bang means plasma cosmology is the future, and more than just of historical interest which all of you let slip by. Very clever you are. But not smart enough. And don't tell me I should act like you. No one knows what they are talking about, if they did, they wouldn't have to talk about it. There's a lot of people who know what I am talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun ( talk • contribs) .
Corrections needed:
Evolution of the universe is redundant in this sentence. "Proposed" is a better term than is "offered". I have never read a scientific papers that "offered" a position.
What the original authors were talking about is called "scaling." The phrase "invoking" is not appropriate.
The use of the term "standard cosmology" itself is not NPOV.
Electricity is the movement of free electrons too.
Plasmas are for Everyone. Gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations. The term plasma is for everyone and not just for specialists.Plasma is defined as a partially or fully ionized medium which exhibits collective effects due to interactions with electric and magnetic fields.Often, the solar wind is described as a "vast stream of ions" (neglecting electrons and the fields), strongly implying (incorrectly) a Navier-Stokes fluid. Plasmas are not simply a type of gas. Let's be more accurate and recognize as well that plasmas are for everyone. Found at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/NoPlasma.html
Amazing how twisting the language around can change the POV
Sounds fine to me. Once again, your alternative is ...? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If true then plasma and cosmolgy do not belong together.
How does "nearly all" imply "equal" importance?
When did "NOW" begin?
This is not correct. Some parts of the universe do not "evolve."
This poorly written.
Also poorly written.
Poorly written. How does one "propose" a "hypothesis"? A "theory" is proposed, hypothesis are stated.
The entire article is poorly written OR, it is cleverly slanted by twisting the language around such that what is being stated becomes confused thereby disabling the point being made.
Poorly written. I have never seen "easily" used an a scientific publication. Hypothesis are not accepted because the are "more easily". Attributing this confused comment to the "proponents" is insulting among other things.
Also poorly written. A perponderance of advocates does not constitute evidence of proof. As Thomas Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the prevailing paradigm is supported by the journals until such time it fails and the alternative is then accepted. The quantity of papers published is not evidence of accuracy. It is merely an idicator of who is in control.
Also obvious to me, this entry is not populated by the free, but is authoritarian. And the only way to get rid of authoritarianism is by revolution.
Tommysun 05:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Two editors User:Tommysun and User:Elerner refuse to talk about meaningful NPOV edits meant to address concerns associated with the tag. They simply revert my edits and the edit war has persisted. Maybe protection might help? -- ScienceApologist 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist is wrong. ScienceApologist continually removes MY edits, I do not touch his. I am the one being wronged. ELerner is a plasma cosmologist, well known in his field. He does not support the big bang and has written a book The big bang never happened. ScienceApologist, by his own words, is a supporter of the big bang theory, yet he continually edits Plasma Cosmology such that it appears as a confused and incorrect presentation of the field. If this isn't conflict of interest, then there is no such rule. Wikipedia has been described elsewhere as being unreliable. Part of this is due to uneducated edits, I am sure. BUT a part of this unreliability also is the result of parties assuming editorial control on a subject, reverting all edits which they do not agree with. This is what is going on in our case. The end result is that some wikipedia entries have become political. If you read the entries for big bang, non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology, it becomes obvious that ALL the material fully supports the big bang and subsumes any and all other theories as "historical interest" only. So much for NPOV. Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have charged ScienceApologist with conflict of interest. He is, by his own words, a big bang supporter, yet he seems to consider himself in charge of editing the rival theory of Plasma Cosmology. Here is my proof:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3
"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC) And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist
Interesting, theory A becomes the one theory available,,, (and nothing else), by deleting the observations of Theory B...
Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Two claims made in the article have been patiently waiting references for a month. Eric has been asked to provide them repeatedly. He has not. If someone has references for them, please add them, but at this point, I think that the references need to be readily available or the prose needs to be removed. -- ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quote from non standard Cosmology. (I tried to add to this list and it was taken out right away. But anyway...)
"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein."
Now, how come you are in the history listings of both non-standard and big bang theory? What is it that you contributed to those lists? Tell us what you said about plasma theory over there? And are you the one who wrote "The non-standard theories are of historical interest only." Do you believe that? And who cleverly put "creation theory" (religion) at the top of the scientific list? Did you do that?
All three of these Wikipedia entries push Plasma physics to the back. The Universe is held together by gravity, but it works together by EMF which on the galactic scale is what is commonly called "Plasma."
Plasma is not something thing electrons flow through, come on, that's electricity. Plasma IS THE FLOWING of both ion and electrons outside an electrical ohmic conductor. EMF guys.
And about Eric's neutral (never knew that, thanks) atoms, in a plasma flowing, this is actually, in keeping with the principle of scaling, "plasma slurry". Did I spell that right? There is no reference because I just made this up.
Quoting from big bang entry--
"Frequently, people come on to this talk page and tell many of the regular editors of the big bang article that their theory is phisophically misguided, unfalsifiable, Ptolemaic, or already falsified. I can assure you that it is none of these things." –Joke 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Trust me...
"The fox guarding the hen"
The big bang as an explosion of matter has been falsified, that's why they came up with inflation which is unfalsifiable, all 21 versions of them...And you won't discuss or even acknowledge the Tifft redshift. Why? Because without Doppler redshift there is no evidence of expansion and without expansion there was no big bang. And without the big bang all that is left is plasma. Tifft redshift is not going away guys, in spite of your efforts to delete it. Some day your big bang bag of hot air is going to burst and the likes of you will turn out to be the laughing stock of the century. The sad part is that you, and all the big bang gang, may take science down with you.
Tommysun 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we tone down the conspiracy hysteria and focus on debating the science? Jon 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
and here is the proof ==
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3
And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist
Tommysun 20:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed my erroronious charge] Tommy Mandel 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
AND Plasma is not a theory, it is an observational fact, and if big bang does not include it, then that alone is proof that big bang is incomplete and if it is incomplete then it isn't completely true. Think about this guys, big bang is a point of view itself, a point f view from the perspective of gravity. Plasma is not in theoretical competition with gravity, it is a complementary. Just the fact that big bang does not incorporate Plasma is proof that the big bang theory is not complete and thus not correct. Plasma will never get rid of gravity, except maybe to explain gravity in terms of EMF - considering that all matter is like balls of electrons which attract eachother. The existence of plasma is itself proof that the big bang is not valid.
Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Then how come "plasma" is not mentioned even once in the big bang section? And what about this quote by Jon?
Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't care what proponents say or think, what does the theory say? Citations, quotes, not hearsay, please.
Tommysun 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about the man on the moon, interesting that the rock formation on Mars looking like a face is resting on a perfectly formed symmetrical plateau, gosh, your uncle was what? Banjo's? Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- - So, you are a big bang supporter too? No wonder you find my stuff pointless, if you didn't you would have to find a new job. Things must be getting tough when one has to resort to ad hominum attacts, subtle or otherwise. Why aren't you with the big bangers? Why are you here? Why don't you go home? Your "widely accepted hypothesis" is based on assumptions. And slowly but surely is being hacked to pieces. See http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm - Doppler redshift is assumed. (which Hubble himself did not agree with) - Expansion is based on that assumption, and without direct evidence, is also an assumption. Backward extrapolation of expansion therefore is also an assumption. Leading to the hypothesis that all of the Universe started out at a point. Where did that point come from? A time when there was no time, a place where there was no place, and an event when probability was zero. Recall that the original big bang did not work out. In order to make this work, the point had to expand to the size of the Universe, and bigger, and without evidence is also an assumption. And then it stopped, how do you explain that? Gravity? If gravity stopped the expansion, how did the expansion accelerate this supposed gravitational mass to speeds vastly greater than the speed of light to begin with? Oh, the laws of physics didn't kick in yet, I suppose...And then how did it stop? Haven't heard the real answer to that one yet. As far as "evolution" is concerned, I don't believe in accidental "after the fact" conjectures, I am a synergy fan myself. You know, positive and negative in a relationship acts as a new whole...To listen to SOME of youse guys, I hear something like the Universe simply went "poof" and the rest just happened to happen. Tommysun 04:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You forget that I wrote the memo to VoA which prompted him to suggest our present procedure. And it was my suggestion to outline the discussion as heads as we (some) are doing. Maybe I should shout out "your big bang model, starting with a poof is ending with a poof"As far as hand waving see http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm. Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the bit about how plasma adherants tried in Nov to edit big bang, and now that means big bang can edit plasma? Yeah, I heard that. Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Didn't take long before I recognized the characteristic writing of a big banger --Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work.
May take a while but I will find out who put this into the aricle, betcha we know him very well.
Tommy Mandel 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And here it, is a revision by our favorite son justified as POV
"The study of astrophysical plasmas is part of the mainstream of academic astrophysics (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model). It is also distinct from (but plays a major role in) plasma cosmology, which states that plasmas are responsible for long-range interactions in the universe.
He removed the text shown in bold
Tommy Mandel 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the complete paragraph. The part in bold was added by the big bang gang
This is precisely what I'm talking about. Please stop bickering and polarising the argument and instead discuss the science. You are the one who is talking about attacks, camps, opposition, and so on. There is perfectly valid and solid science in both "camps". The rub is much more to do with what initial assumptions are being made, with how much confidence, and why. It is always difficult to go back once these assumptions are made, because it seems such a waste of everyone's combined effort over the decades. It is easier to try to modify ones assumptions to accommodate new data rather than rewrite them from scratch. This is more of a human political issue, but your conspiratorial rhetoric will not help convince anyone any more than will SA's authoritarian editorial grandstanding. By the way, I am confident in my own ability to think for myself and draw my own conclusions, rather than rely on anyone else's opinion. I am by no means a top scientist, and even if I was it is irrelevant. Einstein was a patent clerk, and Roger Penrose gave us magical quantum synapses to explain intelligence. Go figure. It would be really great if this article could avoid descending into a troll's nest again. Jon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What's this Jon?
How do you explain this Jon? Come on, you didn't want to climb back into the hole, but then you talk like this? What are you doing? Tommy Mandel
Is that the best you can come up with Jon? I didn't start this fight, your friends started it, you and your friends have insulted me several times, but why you too? And I have yet to insult them back. Am I supposed to just sit back and take it without a word? I am trying to fight for Plasma cosmology, I am not fighting you. I just don't think it is ethical for bag bang people to come here and edit plasma cosmology, and especially with nonsense like "astronomers do not take plasma seriously" or however they put it. They say that I can edit big bang but that is not true, my stuff gets deleted within minutes, from big bang, non-standard cosmology and intrinsic redshift, and all I wanted to say is that there are observation which indicate that Doppler redshift is not proof of expansion, just kike Hubble himself said up to when he passed away. If Doppler redshift is not real, the entire house of big bang cards will fall, and that is going to hurt a lot of people, schools, texts, and the reputation of Western science. But they dug themselves into the hole they are in. And when big bang falls, which cosmology will rise to the occsion? Plasma is not a theory, Jon, it is a fact. It is not something one believes in or does not believe in, it is a fact. And the fact is that big bang does not consider it, contrary to Art's opinion that plasma is mentioned four times. The plasma that is mentioned is quark plasma, and once that plasma cools, there is no more reference to plasma, period. Just because almost everyone does not consider it is more telling about them than it is about plasma. Furthermore, it has been said many times in the literature, that great minds have always been battled by little minds, Einstein said that. I have no idea what is going through your mind when you attack me, but the more I am attacked the more I relaize I am on target. Tommy Mandel 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the participants seem to relish attacking me as a person. Notice, however, that hardly anyone has attacked my ideas, instead they have ignored them or deleted them. I am not going to go away, regardless of what you all tell me to do. To be honest, I am not a cosmologist, I am a writer. And I am a reader. I have read upwards of five hundred books on science. Unfortunately, I do not have a good memory which sometimes is a good thing. It is this "reader" aspect that compels me to enter into this discussion. Frankly, I don't believe much of what I read here. I don't find what I read here written in the literature like it is here. What I have read here, and in "non-standard cosmology" and "intrinsic redshift" and "big bang", is obviously slanted toward the standard theory. That puzzles me because the writing is supposed to be NPOV. I don't know what to think about this "NPOV" concept, especially in cases such as this where there are in fact opposing points of view. How can, for example, one be neutral about Democrats and Republicans? Or, in a technical sense. positive and negative chatges? Are we expected to talk about electricity as if it were neutral? I believe that what we should be striving for is "balance". Because a two volt positive charge on the one hand and a two volt negative charge on the other hand is neutral. But this neutrality is only achieved by both together. There is in fact a controversy about cosmology, it is not accurate to claim that there is only one theory and the other theory has been discredited. That is not being neutral in my opinion.
I have been accused of being inane and my arguments have been thought of as pointless. But let's take a look at them and let the reader judge for himself:
I argue that
(A)the definition of plasma is incorrect. Presently, plasma has been defined here as "Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely..." Having worked in electronics in the Dept of the Navy for many years, I KNOW this is incorrect.
(B) It has been claimed here that Plasma is a gas. I suppose there are situations which plasma can be regarded as a gas, but historically plasma has been regarded as a fourth state or phase of matter. Eric informs us that neutral atoms can take part in a plasma flow, but dust can occur in air, and water in ice. Water in ice is not a solid. That is why I used the term "slurry". As a reader, calling plasma a gas would not be informative to me, it would be misleading if I didn't know better. Many, even NASA, have called plasma a gas. This does not make it right. You can call it "like a gas" and be in the ballpark, but to call it a gas is to ignore prior research. Ignoring prior research is not being scientific.
(C) A definition of terms is standard procedure in any article. Much confusion arises due to misunderstanding. It is better not to assume that everyone will know what a particular term means or how it is being used. What does the term "work" mean? A good dictionary will have at least one hundred different usages of "work." An encyclopedia, if it is a good one, will define the term immediately. It will not place it several sentences later.
(D) Good writing does not intermix catagories, It is not good writing to say the party was attended by John, Mary, other people and George.
(E) Plasma cosmology does not have a beginning. This is very controversial, at least here. But if you look at the science of plasma, it speaks of what is happening now. The idea of a beginning of plasma does not figure into the equations describing plasma. NOW does not have a beginning, but can anyone argue that NOW does not exist? Or that because it does not have a beginning it is not real? NOW is all that exists. My guess that the big bang theory has a beginning is only an assumption which I will discuss below.
(F) I am not saying that a galaxy or a star does not have a beginning. The Universe is a abstract entity. A star is very concrete to use Whitehead's term. The question I believe boils dow to does matter have a beginning? The big bang theory postulates that ALL matter was created at the beginning. This leads to several constraints and problems. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure how matter is created, but I heard that gamma rays brushing up against protons can create electron pairs.
(G) As I understand it, the big bang is very dependant on General Relativity, and it has been said that GR postulates a singularity. It is apparently this singularity from which comes the big bang moment. But I also read that GR does not specify how large this singularity has to be, nor when it must occur. I also read in one of the Inflation papers that, given this ambiguity, it is possible to have several singularities, and many can many mean a lot. So this particular version of Inflation theory postulates that singularities may be occuring all over the place. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that perhaps a singularity occured at the center of each galaxy.
(H) Does matter flow in or out of a galaxy? Does anyone know? Observations show matter flowing outward. A recent paper describing the x-ray halo around our galaxy admits that finding instances of matter flowing inward has been difficult. But finding matter/energy flowing outward is easy. Indeed almost every galaxy has matter flowing outward. A gravity based theory has to explain this in terms of matter flowing inward, hence the black hole accretion disk.
(I) A black hole hs never been observed. What is observed is a tremendous OUTWARD flow of matter. Proga teaches that a black hole is a conjecture devised to explain this outflow. He admits, nay, paints a 48 point type in red lettering "ASSUMED" over the paragraph first describing the black hole in his PPT presentation.
(J) Doppler redshift was not proved by Hubble. Hubble himself did not believe that redshift meant expansion. To his dying day he argued against that interpretation. He said that there must be an unknown reason for the redshift. Why isn't that stated nowadays?
(K) Which Inflation theory is correct? There are twenty one (21) different versions.
(L) Why was Inflation necessary to begin with? Because the original big bang didn't work. This is stated by all of the Inflation authors.
(M) I have a problem with Inflation in that how could space with matter in any form be accelerated to speeds required to create a universe larger than ours (flatness) and then stop? Even light doesn't do this. So what was it that was accelerated? And how did it just stop? I hear that gravity stopped it, well, then it must be ordinary matter, so how did it get accelerated to start with?
(N) I read that as the radiation cooled down a plasma made of quarks and gluons formed, Well, a quark is a particle theory "object", and the gluon is a "relationship force". So Methinks that when there are free quarks, there are no gluons. But what do I know.
(O)If light cooled down to form a quark-gluon plasma, where did the electrons come from?
(P) Remember that expansion was slowed by gravity meaning that matter was slowed. So, at some point we have matter/light still expanding at speeds vastly greater than light. OK, Newton's laws of motion apply, how can gravity pull this matter together when there is a vastly greater force moving matter in its original direction?
(Q) Galaxy Rotation. I am assuming that it is widely believed that matter is collected by a galaxy, that it is flowing inward such that a spiral galaxy may be likened to the whirpool seen in water moving down a drain in a sink. But there is an alternative interpretation, the matter could also be moving outward much like one of those fourth of July spinners.
(R) That there are colliding galaxies is based on the assumption that matter moves inward toward the center of the galaxy. Butif matter is moving outward, then the colliding galaxies are actually bifurcating galaxies.
(S) This is just a personal opinion, but I have never seen an instance of a galaxy which looks like matter is flowing inward.
(T) If gravity can form galaxies, how come we have such a thing as a globular cluster which doesn't look to me like the stars are moving inward?
(U) How come astronomers find stars/galaxies being ejected from galaxies?
(V) How come galaxies are pouring out tremendous outflows of matter some exceeding the speed of light?
(W)If, in the beginning, apace and primordial matter came from nothing, why can't this happen today?
(X)If matter/energy were created in the center of a star, then all of these questions are easily answered,
(Y)But what mechanism is responsible? What powers atomic particles forever? Why was Maxwell simplified?
(Z) Physicists such as Bohm and many others talk about a fifth dimension, a hyper dimension, a quantum ground, a Dirac Sea, a zero point energy, what Maxwell called the Aether, what I prefer to calll the INSIDE of empty space. Can this happen in the center of a galaxy?
I used up my time. Now, who can show me my errors in thinking?
Tommy Mandel 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
But when you come here pretending to be knowledgable editors, when actually all you are doing is confusing the issue by embroiling the real expert in essentially irrelavent detail, then the question of ethics arises, and of course I am a sonofabitch for pointing that out.
Do you realise I support plasma cosmology? Jon 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy, you have some interesting points, but too many for everyone to address at one time. I think the best approach, is to discuss one point at a time, AND, include a verifiable citation where appropriate, or requested. -- Iantresman 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ref: astro-ph/9812144 From: Halton Arp [view email] Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:41:55 GMT (110kb)
Redshifts of New Galaxies Authors: Halton Arp Comments: Invited review talk at the 194th IAU Symp. on "Activity in galaxies and related phenomena", held in Byurakan, Armenia, August 17-21, 1998, Eds. Y.Terzian, E.Khachikian, and D.Weedman, PASP Conf. Series, in press
Now, obviously gravity will not do this, can plasma do that? There is an anamoly observed on our Sun, which is a star. Observation shows that the coronosphere can be hundreds of times hotter that the photosphere. How can cool make hot? Well, I have a pet theory about this one, Tommy Mandel 18:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Been there, ScienceApologist deleted, without discussion, what I had to say...Probably because quantized redshift and expansion are mutually exclusive...You know, I have noticed over the years that many theorists seem to want their pet theory to be all encompassing. Take plasma cosmology, is EVERYTING plasma? I don't think so, gravity does play a role too. But gravity also suffers in that it is trying to explain everything in terms of gravity when everyone know plasma plays a role too. Cosmology will end including both plasma and gravity. I tried to introduce generic cosmology but that was deleted too, Joke was in on that I think. I am a system theorist, which is a multidisciplinary science. Leading edge science is acknowledging to a degree that there are many aspects to any reality. Instead of trying to exclude others we try to sweep in others. Reality does not have the divisions our object oriented sciences have invented. I suppose the problem has to do with the "survival of the survivers" concept some believe in. One has to go to Russian science to find notions like symbiosis and synergy which in English means "working together." Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.--"Jimbo Wales From: NPOV and 'new physics' Fri Sep 26 13:08:16 UTC 2003 -- DV8 2XL 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to move the irrelevant stuff to the top, and moved the real discussion as a group toward the end. If this looks good, maybe the last half can be reorganized better again. For that matter, the above could be archived as far as I am concerned. Tommy Mandel 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Two claims made in the article have been patiently waiting references for a month. Eric has been asked to provide them repeatedly. He has not. If someone has references for them, please add them, but at this point, I think that the references need to be readily available or the prose needs to be removed. -- ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to Ian for referencing the first quote. It was sorely needed and now it's done. Was that so hard?
Secondly, I continue to see refusal on the part of Mr. Lerner to address my points. They are, in turn:
These points all seem very non-controversial to me. I respectfully ask that they be discussed rather than simply reverted.
Thanks,
-- ScienceApologist 13:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I can answer the first point. Regarding [Magnetohydrodynamics], Alfvén and co-author Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, wrote in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics (1952, 2nd Ed.): "It should be noted that the fundamental equations of magnetohydrodynamics rest on the assumption that the conducting medium can be considered as a fluid. This is an important limitation, for if the medium is a plasma it is sometimes necessary to use a microscopic description in which the motion of the constituent particles is taken into account. Examples of plasma phenomena invalidating a hydromagnetic description are ambipolar diffusion, electron runaway, and generation of microwaves". In other words, MHD may not lead to correct results when applied to low-density cosmic plasmas."
I suppose that a loose analogy would be the use of Newtonian physics to get a spacecraft to Mars, but that you need to introduce Einstein when speeds approach that of light. In other words, MHD (what Alfvén called a magnetic field description) often works, but sometime you need to use an electric field description, to model other phenomenon. There is an extension of MHD called Hall-MHD which is takes the electric field description into account.
As for the laundary list, let's put it back for now, add a reference, and I'll find one over the weekend. -- Iantresman 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Including the material on Alfven and MHD is important because it informs the historical development of plasma cosmology. It is the same as including (for example) a brief description of Newton to help explain how Relativity was developed, or describing continental drift to explain plate tectonics. Jon 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't actually matter what Lieu believes or what he concluded. The important point is that his data supports a plasma cosmology prediction. Eric (rightly and respectfully) does not discuss what Lieu concluded from his data because that is actually irrelevant to the point in question. Just because two people see the same numbers and conclude two separate things based on what they believe to be true, doesn't mean Lieu's paper cannot be referenced for the data it contains. Just because it sticks in Joshua's craw is no reason for him to censor it from this article. Jon 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP entry "Plasma (physics) "The dynamics of plasmas interacting with external and self-generated magnetic fields are studied in the academic discipline of magnetohydrodynamics." Tommysun 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Eric, van Flandern pointed out to me that the concept of a beginning is not necessarily a necessary in astronomy. I've been thinking about that and I wonder if the words "Plasma" and "cosmology" actually belong together.Would you email me please? I have a couple of things I would like t discuss with you. Tommysun 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Joshua has obtained protection of his version of the article. I am requesting unprotection of this page. I responded fully to Joshua(ScienceAplogist) continued reverts on the talk page. This response has been now moved to the archive since it was before March 9. Protection has simply served to take ScienceApologist's side. He is unsupported in his changes by anyone else's edits. He is getting his way as a minority of one by continually reverting and now getting the page protected with his changes in place.
Elerner
05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous--you know I've replied at length. Here is the exchange again:
Cleaning up Joshua's mess
I re-instated again the early history of PC which traces to Aflven's pointing out the limitations of MHD. I put back in "big bang theory" since the theory itself relies on new physics, such as inflation and baryon non conservation to be even vaguely consistent with obervations. I replaced Lieu's interpretation of his own data in his own paper, while eliminating Joshua's unverifiable quote.
I also eliminated Joshua's unfactual description of the open letter on cosmology. A glance at the signers list will show that it can not be described as 'plasma cosmology advocates". Would that there were several hundred of those! But there are not.
I'll return to the GR reference next time I'm at the library. No doubt we will now have a series of reverts by Joshua.Elerner 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I also removed the refernce to "largest voids" since the reference given does not refer to them. And I changed "most astronmers" believe WMAP problems are due to foreground to "some astronomers" becauses there is no reference to a peer-reviewed poll of astronomers and the issue is clearly actively debated with lots of papers on both sides.Elerner 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Eric's rationale and why I reinstated everything but one point:
* o + I don't mind the early history including Alfven's ideas about the "limitations" of MHD, but the prose did not indicate this and rather seemed to indicate that MHD was somehow part of plasma cosmology. Since it is really separate I removed the prose, and will try to instate sentences that indicate a divergeance from Alfven's much more famous ideas.
The prose is quite clear that the later work came out of Alfven's clear recognition of the limitations of the MHD approach, which he had developed. Anyone who is literate can see that.EL
Too bad the prose is irrelevant. EL ignores my point again. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The prose is only irrelevant in your opinion. It seems perfectly relevant to a description of plasma cosmology to me. Please describe here for our benefit why you think it is irrelevant. Jon 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that we are writing according to Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no reason to include MHD here especially because pc advocates explicitly don't use it. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + It's the Lambda-CDM model that relies on new physics. The Big Bang itself is strictly a GR-based expanding FLRW metric.
Nope, the Big bang includes inflation, which is new physics. Without inflation the Big Bang predicts a grossly anisotropic CBR because of the horizon problem and would be in gross contradiction to observations. Also the Big Bang requires baryon non-conservation, which is new physics. Otherwise nearly everything would have annihilated itself. EL
Nope, the Big bang need not include inflation. Besides expanded versions of Lambda-CDM include parameters for inflation as well. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The quote is totally verifiable as stated in WP:V.
Your quote refers to an entirely different paper by Lieu on a completely different subject. EL
Ostriker-Vishniak vs. Sunyaev-Zeldovich, touche. However, the gesture is later and the same: Lieu believes the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + Many of the people on the list aren't even astronomers and some aren't scientists. The ones that we are interested with for this page are the plasma cosmology advocates.
Ridiculous. Read the list. An insignificant fraction have ever commented about plasma cosmology. Here are some of the institutions that signatories are associated with; Armenzano Observatory; Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University; Danish Space Research Institute; Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ; European Southern Observatory; Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics; High Altitude Observatory, NCAR ; Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica ; Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik; Observatoire de Lyon; Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Service d'Astrophysique, CEA; Space Research Institute, Russia; Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS; Università di Bari ; Cambridge University; College de France; Cornell University; Indian Institute of Technology; Padua University; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Jet Propulsion Laboratory--EL
Ridiculous snowballing. Many of the people who signed haven't ever taken an astronomy class in college -- the list is a meaningless charade. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The reference given does refer to voids of the order of magnitude of the largest.
Absolutely not true. Provide a quote. I read these references. --EL
Then you missed the fact that their voids were dozens of megaparsecs in length? --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The foreground arguments regarding low-ls seem to have the preponderance of papers in the community. There are astonishingly few papers written arguing that this represents a problem for vanilla banana. I often get the impression that Eric is a selective reader of the journals. Not surprising, but this kind of advocacy shouldn't be tolerated as an editorial excuse.
Prove it. Count the papers. There are tons that say the non-Gaussianity is in the real data and can't be MW contamination. Also, for your sentence to be true, it would have to be the opinion of "most astronomers" not most people who have published papers in the field. But it is not true in either case. --EL
Well, of the last 15 or so I read on astro-ph in the last year, I can recall less than half making a claim that the CMB is a local phenomenon because of this. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, I reverted since Eric has made some rather underhanded reverts as per his usual "game-playing". Please address the issues I outlined above rather than reverting from the hip. Talking about these things is always better than edit warring.:--ScienceApologist 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For the above reasons, I have reverted all of Joshua's reverts.Elerner 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"
-- Elerner 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Elerner 17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll notice that the last person to respond to each point was myself. Since then you have opted out of the discussion. --
ScienceApologist
18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologetics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Colloquial usage Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. Tommysun 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages or images so that they cannot be modified except by other admins (the link "Edit this page" is replaced by a link "View source" when viewed by non-admins). This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.
and it continues with--
Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
Tommysun 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, Voice of All, who froze the page, say that we can edit it if we reach a consensus, which specifically does not have to include Joshua, if the rest of us agree. So I suggest that we agree on Tommysun's last version, with the exception of the definition of plasma. Can I try again here on that: "Plasma is a state of matter where electrons and ions can move freely, and carry currents."? What do the rest think? Elerner 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been avoiding editing this page for a while. I have a few comments:
– Joke 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with VoA's proposal. I submit that Joshua supports the big bang interpretation and his vote here in Plasma Cosmology should be taken with a grain of salt too. He is right that I know very little about Wikipedia, but I do know how to write. I concede that my keyboard doesn't.
I propose that we start at the beginning. The beginning sets the stage so to speak, and it is very important to the reader. It cannot be assumed that a reader is familair with the subject and thus will be able to "read in" the facts appropriately.
For example, the present definition of plasma is actually a definition of electricity. Plasma is different from electricity in that it usually has both ions and electrons flowing as a current without a conductor.
I propose that each proposal up for vote have it's own heading. Therefore, allow me to begin with my suggestion
Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma is a freely flowing electrons and ions. The Universe consists mainly of plasma, which is found in our Sun, the stars, the galaxies, and throughout space. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for galaxy formation, the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure and, in general, the development of the universe. Plasma, as (a)cosmology, is conventionally thought of as a non-standard cosmology as opposed to the standard big bang theory.[1] Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Can we really use wikipedia as a source? Read further and they clear it up somewhat. Sorry I cannot trust wikipedia's definition of Plasma. Plasma is not a gas, it is a current flow. You don't fill a neon bulb with plasma.
If it were a gas, then it couldn't be called a fourth state of matter. Are we going to change that notion of a fourth state too? Also, is matter (in general) and plasma the same thing? Tommysun 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. Is a neon bulb filled with plasma? Or does plasma flow when you light it? Everyone else calls it a fourth state of matter, why do you want to change that?
from http://www.plasmas.org/rot-plasmas.htm Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommysun, I think SA and I know perfectly well what a plasma is. Perhaps if you are having trouble understanding, and don't find us credible, you should ask one of the users of Wikipedia who are professional plasma physicists. At least three come to mind: Art Carlson, Craig DeForest and Eric Lerner. – Joke 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What I have trouble understanding is why are big bang people over here? For that reason I DO NOT FIND SA credible, I am neutral about Joke, and I find Art to be honest. Sometimes, when one is deeply involved in a subject, the obvious gets taken for granted, and subsequently often is ignored. The whole idea of this work is to define plasma and then elaborate. So when the expert defines plasma as "an ionized state of matter" well, believe me, the reader will have no clue about what he means. And doesn't "ionized" exclude electrons, hmmm? Tommysun 05:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a friend too... http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/#plasma
Tommysun 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing for "current flow" I have taken that out. What I am arguing is that plasma is not a gas.
This is not intended as a suggested introduction. But to clarify: Plasmas may be solid (crystaline) [1] as well as gaeous. Plasmas do NOT follow gas laws (although gas laws may sometimes approximate); "Maxwell equations for electromagnetism and the plasma Boltzmann equation are the basic equations for studies of electromagnetic systems of which plasmas are a prime example" [2]. A plasma is a substance in which sufficient atoms or molecules have been ionized allowing charges to flow freely. A partially ionized gas, in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized, may be considered to be, and behave as a plasma (there are other factors too). For example, a 1% ionized gas may be highly electrically conductive. A plasma may also contain unequal numbers of oppositely charged particles (eg. particle beams). -- Iantresman 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me point out that on the current course, we will not get consensus on anything and the article will just be frozen the way Joshua wants it. I suggest that we start by taking each one of Joshua's disputed edits in turn and vote on them. If we get some lopsided votes on some, let's call it consensus and change it. Then we can turn to Tommysun's edits and the definition of plasma and see if we can get a lopsided vote on one definition. I don't know what VOA calls consensus other than it does not mean unanimous and probably does not mean a 3-2 vote. So can people just weigh in on this procedural question? Can we get consensus on that? Elerner 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think, SA, what VoA was trying to do is prevent you from stopping us...
Eric, why don't you simply make a list of major headings to be discussed, and then we all can edit/discuss whatever we want whenever we want. It may be useful to include the sentence or paragraph as the first entry under each heading as the working edit.
Tommysun 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well let's try it out, shall we?
As User:ScienceApologist notes, we should take note of this from the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page:
Sorry for the large quote, but it is quite relevant :) Jon 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate "Building on the work of Kristian Birkeland,"
Justification: Birkeland was the first to point out the role of cosmic plasma and Alfven did , in his own view, build on Birkeland's work. There is no reason to eliminate this part of PC's history. Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
Reinstate: "- Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas.These include:
Justification: This is all described at great length in the Cosmic Electrodynamics book, which is referenced in the notes. Alfven thought these were the most important features of plasma behavior on cosmic scales.Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
but agree Tommysun 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: "(including the largest walls and voids)"
Justification: The cited references show that the largest voids are 100 Mpc. Even by Joshua's own account, the largest voids in the simulations are 35 Mpc (and I see no mention of that number in his references.) 35Mpc is, by a factor of 3, less than 100 Mpc, so the statement is not verifiable (nor true) and needs to go. Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
Let's start with those three. Please vote now. Elerner 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I feel a bit like I'm sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but please hear me out:
The overview gives three assumptions as lying at the core of plasma cosmology. The first I'm sceptical of because it ignores the fact that on the largest scales the charges even out, but then I can see that the claim that they don't is what makes plasma cosmology different.
The second and third, however, don't strike me as all that scientific at all. I don't really see how they help to make testable predictions (OK, the third makes the "prediction" that "the universe is evolving", but that's not exactly very specific). They're more like the sort of argument-from-incredulity stuff that I'm more used to seeing from Creationists as reasons why the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and unbelievable.
As far as I can see, the "EM and gravitation are equally important on the largest scales" assumption is enough to get the important predictions of plasma cosmology in its broadest terms. The others just make the theory look cranky to be honest, particularly number two which just looks like a huge bit of begging the question: "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". For all that I'm deeply sceptical of PC, I do believe that (unlike Creationism) it's ultimately an honest intellectual enterprise, but this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Creationists indulge in.
Are the latter two assumptions just badly stated? Or are they not in fact fundamental principles of plasma cosmology as a theory, but rather philosophical reasons why its supporters are attracted to it and dissatisfied by the Big Bang? Surely, if plasma cosmology is a science, it should stand or fall on whether it's the best available explanation of the evidence, not whether it's philosophically pleasing?
Oh, and in the caption of the snapshots from the Perratt galaxy formation sim, shouldn't "kps" be "kpc"? -- Bth 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Concerning "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". how come the big bang theory can assume Doppler redshift to be true, and therefore the big bang is true?
Tommysun
16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Evolution" is a biological term. And that theory is questionable itself when "selection" is regarded as an evolutionary principle because, listen to this, "Selection is AFTER THE FACT." Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why, because selection is in fact "after the fact"? Need I explain this? Selection does not occur until AFTER the evolutionary integration occurs. So, what is the evolutionary integration? Random chance? Mutation? And that's it? Hardly, symbiosis, synergy, wholistic systems is more like it.-- Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I see we are unprotected by Jossi again and that Joshua is going along with the crowd. So let's move right along and see what everyone thinks about the rest of Joshua's disputed changes.
Reinstate Lieu's direct quote:
Justification: This is a direct quote from the article in question. Joshua's quotes are from an EARLIER interveiw relating to an entirely different paper by Lieu. Lieu's comments in that interveiw are not about his own beliefs, it is about what he feels are the implications of the work he was interveiwed about, which was entirely different than the work we are concerned with here. There is just no justification for dragging that other work in by the tail and excluding Lieu's own views about the signifigance of THIS work.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC) agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why paraphrase on a controversial issue, when we have a short quote? Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This is as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contradiction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CMB originates at extreme distances. --> this prose is unacceptable unless a source for this can be cited. -- ScienceApologist 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate "Some astronomers believe that the alignments ..." in the paragrpah about the WMAP alingments.
Justification: I was able to find only TWO papers in arXiv claiming that these results were due to foreground in the two years since this was first reported. Maybe there are more. But in just the last month, there were two papers completely ruling out foreground contamination. So saying that "some astronmers " think this when it cleary is not a majority veiw, seems fair.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just saying WHO pointed this out--it was not God, it was some--actually a few--astronomers. Here are four very recent citations, just astro-ph numbers and four from last year: 0603369, 0601427, 0603308, 0603367, 0502237, 0508047, 0503442, 0511802. Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here is my take. The papers 0511802 and 0601427 are about non-Gaussianity, not about the quadrupole and octopole, which is a different, though related, discussion. The problem with the other papers (0503442, 0603367, and 0502237, 0603308) is that rather than marginalizing over foregrounds, they use so-called foreground cleaned maps, such as the WMAP Internal Linear Combination map, the Tegmark foreground cleaned map, or the wavelet cleaned map of 0603308. Nobody disputes that the effect is in these maps. The question is whether the errors induced in the foreground subtracted map are properly accounted for. The four papers I consider authoritative are Slosar and Seljak (0404567), Bielewicz et al. (0507186), Copi et al. (0508047), and Tegmark and de Oliveira-Costa (0603369, which is spanking new!). They obtain similar results and come to very different conclusions. From Slosar and Seljak,
from Bielewicz,
from Copi,
from Tegmark,
Obviously, although these papers come to mutually consistent conclusions, they interpret the same observations in very different ways. They all confirm that the quadrupole and octopole are aligned with a significance of 1–2% in the so-called "cleaned" maps, with a somewhat less significant alignment with the ecliptic, and that the signficance is reduced when a more detailed analysis with a careful treatment of foregrounds is performed. Their interpretation of this result differs. Slosar and Seljak indicate that it eliminates evidence for alignment; Bielewicz thinks that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is confirmed, but not the ecliptic alignment; Copi thinks that the alignment with the ecliptic is very robust, despite agreeing his results are consistent with Slosar and Bielewicz; Tegmark suggest that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is robust and does not consider the ecliptic. Maybe we'll learn more about it Thursday at noon, but I doubt it. – Joke 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate:
Justification: It is plain wrong to describe the signers of the Open Letter as supporters of alternative cosmology. Some of them are, but most are not. Two hundred and fifty of them--"many"--are scientists or engineers associated with instituions, all but a handful of them being universites, or government or corporate research insitutions. Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree with Eric Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jon 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
How about the more quantitative: "However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded." Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply quote the article and be done with it? That would be an honest way to deal with it. It reads: "Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe." Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to conventional cosmology. --> this statement is obviously not NPOV. There is no independent corroboration that such a statement is correct. It could be that all the alternative cosmology developers are all incapable of producing good work. (I'm not saying that they are, only that it's not NPOV to claim that the hampering is due to exclusive allocation of funding.) -- ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded. --> cosmologies aren't "funded", grants are given to scientists and research groups. This kind of wording is exceedingly problematic. -- ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Quote EL: "Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue." --> Eric, can you name one person who signed the statement who supports the Big Bang? -- ScienceApologist 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know enough about these areas of the subject to answer. -- Iantresman 10:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is what scientists can do. Notive how their simulation looks just like a galaxy Tommysun 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In 1974, Alfvén's theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora, based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland, was confirmed by satellite, and Birkeland currents were discovered. Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work. Alfvén subsequently highlighted the importance of treating astrophsyical plasmas as such, writing... [11]:
This comment (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model).is suspicious, as if added on as an afterthought.
Tommy Mandel 07:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if they found Zero point energy yet...
Tommy Mandel 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
They did already, the serpent people from the planet Klattoo gave it to the US government in the 50s, they've been covering it up ever since. Jon 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well done Joke137 with the footnotes, I'm sure it was tedious to re-do, but very worthwhile. Having done a few articles with lots of footnotes, I'm going off to learn about the new footnote module. -- Iantresman 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I hate to quibble (generally Joke's last edits are fine.) But it is RESEARCH, not researchers, that is not being funded. Quite a few scientists are getting funding for other work that does not involve alternate cosmology, but can't get funded for research that does. So this phrase is more accurate. Also , we are talking about a specifc statement and that is what it says --investigations, not investigators. Elerner 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So I finally got Hawking and Ellis at the library and it is educational to see what their argument actually is. It is NOT a proof that GR predicts the expansion of the universe, so the statement in the article is clearly wrong as it stands.
In section 10.1, H&E refer to an earlier (in the book) proof of the existence of singularities in gravitational collapse and then apply this to the universe:
“Thus one might expect that the conditions of theorem 2 will be satisfied in the reverse direction of time on cosmological scale, providing that the universe is in some sense sufficiently symmetrical and contains a sufficient amount of matter to give rise to closed trapped surfaces.” So these two assumptions are necessary for the proof. Now H&E set out to prove that those conditions apply, not from the mathematics of GR, but from observations of the CBR, and assumptions about it:
“We shall give two arguments to shows that this indeed seems to be the case. Both arguments are based on the observations of the microwave background…”
They immediately state the assumption that the universe is transparent in microwave frequencies to 10^27 cm, so this is the first assumption of their proof. They justify this by saying that we can observe discrete sources at this distance. (This clearly does not follow, since we can observe sufficiently bright UV sources through dust that highly absorbs them and the same can be true at microwave wavelengths.)
They then describe their first argument, that since the universe is transparent and since the CBR is highly isotropic, the universe that produced the CBR is close to an FRW metric.
In the proof of this theorem, they explicitly use the assumption that the radiation is freely propagating. In addition, they introduce a second assumption that the matter—the galaxies—can be approximated by a smooth fluid of constant density. In other words they assume it does have a finite, constant average density—is homogenous.
Then they introduce a third assumption that the cosmological constant is zero. Now they put all these things together and get the unsurprising result that in an isotropic, homogenous(non-zero density) universe without cosmological constant, you can always find a large enough radius that the matter within that radius exceeds the Schwarzschild mass and so is a closed surface. Thus if it is a closed surface, it must collapse to a singularity (or expand form one.)
So, far from being a “generic prediction of GR”, this proof requires 3 additional explicit assumptions—a universe transparent at microwave frequencies, a finite average density, and a zero cosmological constant. Clearly none of these assumptions is necessarily true. Both my work on the FIR-radio correlation and Lieu’s work on SZ is evidence that the universe is not transparent at microwave frequencies, which would collapse the whole proof. Second, a fractal universe has no determinate density, since density depends on the scale on which it is measured. Any universe with fractal dimension of 1 or less will have NO radius within which there is a Schwarzschild mass and thus no closed surface. Finally of course even Big Bang cosmologists do not accept today the non-zero cosmological constant .
I am specifcially talking about whether the sentence in the the plasma cosmology article accurately describes what H&E did, not about what is "true". No personally I don't think anything of the cosmological constant and plasam theory predicts a fractal dimaneison of 2 up to scales of several Gpc. Beyond that, there is not much evidence one way or the other. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So much for proof number 1. Moving on to their second proof, H&E attempt to prove that there is enough matter for a closed surface by the blackbody spectrum of the CBR. Again they assume a zero cosmological constant. More important, they assume that the scattering mechanism is Thompson scattering. But this is true only in unmagnetized plasma. If for example, there are magnetized filaments with high magnetic fields, they can scatter radiation by inverse synchrotron absorption and subsequent synchrotron emission, making the scattering length orders of magnitude greater, or equivalently making the amount of matter needed to thermalize many orders of magnitude smaller. It is easy to prove, as I have done in my papers on the plasma theory of the CBR, that thermalization can be achieved within a radius, and with a mass of matter, that is far less than a Schwarzschild mass within that radius. So the second proof as well does not rest only on GR, but also on the assumption that the CBR is scattered only by Thompson scattering and, again that there is no cosmological constant.
No, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938. For dense, highly magnetized filaments the cross section for synchrotron absoprtion can be vastly higher than Thompson scattering. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The final argument H&E use is based on the earlier proofs, so of course includes their assumptions as well. Here H&E explicitly assume an FRW, expanding universe metric and then argue that if that expansion is traced back far enough in time, you reach a point where the microwave background energy density along would form Schwarzschild masses. But this assumes expansion, it does not seek to prove it.
So to summarize, the Hawking and Ellis proofs do NOT show that the expansion is a generic consequence of GR, but instead is a consequence of GR plus the additional assumptions that the present-day universe is essentially transparent to CBR radiation, that such radiation is scattered only by Thompson scattering, that the distribution of mass is homogenous (definite average density, non-fractal) and that there is no cosmological constant. End of lecture.
Can all agree to delete the offending sentence now? Elerner 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Read it again, Joke. "from the fact that it remains isotropic travelling over such a long distance, we can conclude that on a large scale the metric of the universe is close to one of the the Robertson-Walker metrics" and in the next paragraph "since the radiation is freely propoagating..". Short-scale scattering explains the isotropy but is assumed not to occur. Also, what about all those other assumptions, too? Elerner 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The second argument assumes zero cosmological constant and only Thompson scattering. Still not a direct consequence, generic or otherwise of GR. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The only reasons the sentence was in the article is because it argued that GR implied expansion, and therefore, by implication, the surface brightness data would contradict GR. But I have shown that this is not at all the case. The idea that you can derive expansion from several other assumptions is just irrelevant to what we are discussing here, which is the obervational evidence , from surface brightness, against expansion.
The question of whether or not the Hubble relation is caused by expnasion is an observational one, not a theoretical one. If it is caused by expansion, the (z+1)^3 sclaing has to work. If it does not work, then the Hubble redshifts are not caused by expansion.
So I'm deleting the whole mess as irrelevent to the article. You should put it in the article on Big Bang. Elerner 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Your response does not address the issues. The surface brightness data is not the "only reason" the sentences are in the article. Two points are made in the section:
No, it does not. The reference you cited, H&E clearly does not prove this, without additional assumptions, as I have pointed out at length. Elerner 16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In a fractal universe the average density of matter is zero, which makes the time scale of expansion or contraction infinite--for a fractal dimension of 1 or less. By the way, you are adding your own additional assumptions, like zero vorticity. Anyway, a zero rate of expansion or contraction is the same as a static universe. Also, even for a fractal universe of dimension 2, with nR=10^19 particles/cm^2, the expansion or contraction time would be of the order of 2x10^14 years and would be unobservably long. So again, you are wrong that GR alone implies anything, You need additional assumptions like homogeniety and no rotation.
You seem to find it hard to let go of the idea that you can "prove" mathematically that the universe is expanding. You can't. Give it up. While you're at it, why don't you admit who you are? Afraid to be caught arguing with a heretic? Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to argue numbers, you have to check your orders of magnitude more carefully. The Local Group's radius is about 1.7 Mpc, not 100 kpc. See, for example, http://www.seds.org/messier/more/local.html.This makes your calculation off by a factor of 17 ^3 or more than three orders of magnitude Elerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
H&E don't prove this at all. As I've said above, their argument is based on only one kind of scattering. Elerner
It is not original research--it's in my published papers. And it is not "my opinion". Read the paper--check the plasma physics. You don't seem to be able to follow very elementary plasma physics, yet the math involved in synchrotron absorption (a physically different proces than Thompson scattering) is a lot simpler than GR. It is also based on a theory that is far better confirmed than GR--electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations. If you can't find flaws in my derivations, then you should not keep reverting the article. Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you must check your arithmetic more carefully. Eq. 2.18a of the reference you cited shows that the ratio of synchrotron to Thompson cross section for radiation near the cyclotron frequency is 8.2x10^15/B, where B is the magnetic field in gauss. Even for the densest filaments cited in my paper, with B=2.5x10^5 gauss the ratio is 3.3x10^10, which is a long way off from your figure of 200. Anyway, I will think about a way to revise this so as to end the dispute. I suspect the whole thing should be moved to a separate section. Elerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
These are important. I agree that observations are paramount – I've never said they weren't – but if your theory is incompatible with GR which has had powerful experimental verification, then it suggests that it incorrect, or at least incomplete. – Joke 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted some compromise language. I am not going to go into yet another book, after all of Joke's admitted errors. Hopefully we can end the matter here. Elerner 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No, GR does not say that the space in the solar system or the galaxy is contracting--i.e. that the metric is changing. GR in no way rules out local stable concentrations of matter, no more than Newtonian gravity does.Your wording clearly implies a change in the metric with time, and that is in no way a result of GR. Elerner 06:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have been forced to assume the position of intellectual combatant here at this time. I apologize to Eric and Art, as for the rest, disregard me all you want, but be warned, the truth will out eventually and you will pay dearly for your intellectual stance. The world is going to laugh at you, at least those who bother thinking about you.
I wonder what happened to the "FREE" part of Wikipedia. Who says nothing can be edited without SA's approval? I have been looking around various cosmological subjects, Seems that ScienceApologist is involved with all of them. Looking at the discussions,ScienceApologist frequently deletes the work of others. There are complaints on every page. I found the entry Intrinsic Redshift which included Arp's work, and of course discounts it, but says nothing about quantized redshift. Indeed, there is no entry for quantized redshift. What does quantized redshift have to do with Plasma cosmology? POV or not, Plasma cosmology is to a degree an alternative theory to the widely accepted big bang theory. The big bang theory is supported in part by Doppler redshift observatons. Redshift is directly observed but the Doppler interpretation is an assumption that even Hubble didn't believe in. Quantized redshift was found by W. Tifft some time ago, and it has since been verified several times. Quantized and Doppler do not go together in a description of redshift, the usual explanation is that Doppler redshift would reveal a smooth continuous movement while quantized redshift shows periodic movement. Unless, of course, the earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by galaxies spaced like an onion skin. The explanation for quantization is simply that the shift is intrinsic, hence intrinsic redshift. for example the CREIL effect. I added these references to the intrinsic redshift page but they were soon deleted by SA. And with no discussion that Joshua always demands of others. He has used the word "evil" I wonder if I can use that word too. There is much more at stake here than Wikipedia hobby time, the reputation and security of American science is on the line, especially in regard to cosmology. The reason is simple, if American science is wrong, how far will it take us? There are many who believe that money has become the reason and purpose of science. Funding is important to those who are trying to suport themselves and their families. But is science science when it is being used for money?
M.B. Bell1 and D. McDiarmid1.(2005) Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
M.B. Bell (2006) Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that they are Likely to be a Lot Closer than their Redshifts Imply. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242
Tifft W.G.. (2003) 1Redshift periodicities, The Galaxy-Quasar Connection. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 285, Number 2, 2003, pp. 429-449(21)
Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3 Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Numbers 1-2, 1996, pp. 143-157(15)
Oldershaw, Robert L. (1995) New Light on Redshift Periodicities; Quantization in the Properties of Quasars and Planets. APEIRON Vol. 2, Nr. 2,
It didn't take long before ScienceApologist deleted them. Isn't this vandalism? What right has he got to delete my entries? SA by his own admission is a big bang advocate, and the method he uses is to delete or confuse opposing viewpoints. I don't know where he comes from, but in America freedom of speech is a right granted in our constitution. We are free to state opposing views. For one party to delete opposing viewpoints is not legal. When Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view, it mean that both sides need to be presented. That is common sense in all endeavors. Nowhere but here is a neutral point of view obtained by eliminating the opposing view.
Amazing what a difference there is between the original papers/books, and the opinions of the followers. For example, the Black hole is actually a conjecture based on the fact that they do not have any other explanation for how matter/energy is moving OUT. If one finds and reads the original papers, this is made plain by the author. But somehow, as the message is carried from reader to reader, the assumption becomes hypothesis becomes fact becomes basis for new hypothesis becomes fact. In the end we read in the morning newspaper that they find black holes by observing tremendous outflows. And when they find tremendous outflows, they thus have found a black hole. Tommy Mandel 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're learning to avoid the worst of my criticism, but even here I think you really know the difference between the First Amendment and Wikipedia policy, for instance - you're free to talk in your house, but you aren't free to use someone else's megaphone without answering to their rules. Things like that make ScienceApologist look more credible when he claims that Eric Lerner and Ian Tresman are like you but better at hiding it. Art LaPella 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the book, pg 79: "...there is no such thing as tresearch without counterinstances. For what is it that differentiates normal science from science is a crisis state? Not, surely, that the former confronts no counterinstances." Tommy Mandel 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
but there is undoubtedly something interesting going on. These slides from a presentation of Meyer's seems quite interesting, starting with a so-far-unexplained 12 hour periodic abberation in time data from GPS satellites, and the Pioneer acceleration. He contends they point to a SR modification involving, interestingly enough, redshift. It's just a hypothesis, but a very interesting one. Jon 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I just clarify that plasma is not an electrically conducting gas. Gases characteristically do not conduct electricity. Plasmas have characteristics which totally differentiate themselves from gases. That's not to say that a plasma can not be treated, sometimes, as an ideal gas. But then gases and liquids can sometimes be treated as fluids, but we still differentiate gases from liquids. -- Iantresman 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like Lerner's definition of plasma, which I reverted. Most sources I've seen define plasma as an electrically conducting gas or at least defines it in terms of gas (say, as an ionized gas). I don't see a problem with this, but if you want to remove the reference to gas, it is important to mention its gaslike properties. Alfvén is here making a distinction between ionized gas and plasma which we don't clearly make in the article. – Joke 16:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have improved the language of the first paragraph. Tommy Mandel 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved sentence about no beginning from definition paragraph to paragraph about differences Tommy Mandel 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Improved sentence structure of first sentence in third paragraph Tommy Mandel 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Added the notable feature of plasma spiraling to third paragraph. Has this been discussed in the article later on? I'm sure it has, right? Tommy Mandel 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I took out the sentence referring to the big bang and gravity in the third paragraph. Oddly enough, my delete key doesn't work and I tried to to do a control C to copy the sentence and place it in a mor3e appropriate place but that doesn't work either, So it will have to be rewritten and placed in the right place. I hope that everyone is satisfied with the first three paragraphs as they are now. I like them, however, I will be questioning the phrase "electrically conductive" later on. Not that plasma is not electrically conductive, but the word "electrically" means to me anyhow electricity, which as we all know plasma is not, being composed of both ions and electrons. I know what is meant by electrically conductive, but in the strict sense electrically conductive plasma is at least misleading. In the sense that plasma is not a conductor per se. Plasma is the conducting itself, and the point of plasma is that it doesn't require a "conductor." in order to flow. The problem may be that we don't have a word for "pasma conducts plasma" hat says what "wire conducts electricity" My keyboard is dying. Tommy Mandel 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is how I edited these paragraphs. I spent an entire evening on this and did it without trying to ruin the work of others. In the middle of this somehow my edits disappeared dn't know why but I finally got it back the way I did it. This makes sense to me. I think that Eric wants to correct some of this, but I would like to have my say before it gets reverted back to the beginning. Please/
Thanks TM
Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model which incorporates the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmologists have proposed explanations for the evolution of the universe; from galaxy formation, to the cosmic microwave background, to large scale structure. Plasma is scalable, and electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas are used to study astrophysical plasma. Plasma cosmology is considered to be a non-standard cosmology. [1]
Plasma are those charged particles that are electrically-conductive and responds collectively to electromagnetic forces. It typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds or charged ion beams, but may also include dust and grains (called dusty plasmas) [2] They are typically formed by heating and ionizing a gas, stripping electrons away from atoms, thereby enabling the positive and negative charges to move freely. This movement typically takes on a spiraling structure. Plasma makes up the stars, the interstellar medium, and intergalactic medium. Astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are important in stars, galactic discs, quasars and active galactic nuclei.
Tommy Mandel 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we not link to the Plasma (physics) page for the actual definition? We don't need to repeat it here in detail, surely? Jon 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Why was "spiraling" taken out? Tommy Mandel 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I found this sentence today -- "Plasma cosmology often interprets astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. " very intriguing. I know I didn't write it because I have been struggling with trying to say it right. Whatever, it is a good example of how simple language can be very profound. Although I would argue the "often" part...I would like to add here that scaling means Plasma is intrinsically testable Tommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I replaced "collection" with the more state of the art "integrative-system." It bears discussion. A "collection" is much like a pile of sand, and does not do anything more then be collected together. A system differs in that the elements are interconnected and interrelated and in this "together" way can give rise to new emergent properties. These new properties usually cannot be found in the parts by themselves. Or even the collection of the parts. So just like there are properties of the atom which are quite different from the properties of the constituent protons and electrons, there are properties of plasma that are quite different from these protons and electrons. Tommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves..." Tommy Mandel 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In assumption one, the term "equal" is a quantity, but it is not verfied in the ref: The ref. states clearly that in some cases magnetic fields are dominant (when matter is ionized) and when atoms are neutral, gravity dominates. Also, to say "on all scales" results in an error, as gravity is not equal to emf on atomic scales, if I remember right there is a difference of something like 10^43
Assumption two. text copied from above
Tom Van Flandern views cosmology as "eternal" like Schroedinger with his view of NOW, "having no beginning and no end," How? Someone, lost the reference, said that GR requires a singularity, but, the person wrote, GR does not stipulate how large the singularity has to be nor does it limit the number of singularities, In fact one of the 21 versions of Inflation theory has mini-singularities all over the place. Does this mean that GR would be satisfied if a singularity occured during the development of each galaxy? Maybe? So, where does the matter come from? Plasma. Seems that some physicists believe that there is a hidden dimension of space, a fifth dimension, what rienmann and Maxwell called the fourth dimension. I call it the INSIDE of empty space. How does maxwell do that? I wish I knew, but so far I have been led to the displacement currents. What are they? Maxwell's equations are not the original equations he formulated, instead they are simplifications created by Heaviside. What he simplified out was the quaternions, which, I think, explained how EMF persists in space. So, plasma is connected to a dimension inside space, which always existed, and which is the source of the energy within a galaxy/star.Therefore matter is streaming OUTWARD from any galaxy, exactly as observed. No need for fantastic creations from nothing ending in nothing. Tommysun 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the second assumption is not as important as the first, but I guess it's included to differentiate itself from Big Bang cosmology. You could have a version of plasma cosmology which has a finite age, if you are prepared to accept certain phenomenon in plasma cosmology, and certain phenomenon from Big Bang cosmology. No-one has ownership of plasma cosmology, nor Big Bang cosmology--Iantresman 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Because "effect" infers "cause", effect as a beginning of the Universe cannot be assumed without cause. Without cause, there can be no beginning. If beginning has a cause, then it is not the beginning. (I wonder how much of this problem is caused by having to use words to describe it?) Tommy Mandel 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology assumes that effect infers cause, and does not assume that effect occurs without cause.
Tommy Mandel 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a distinction has to be made here between Universe and matter. We can't say that matter is the Universe, because at one time, according to the prevailing theory, Universe existed but matter did not. So Universe becomes a huge abstraction (Whole) that we can never touch, so to speak. Matter, however, begs the question of where does it come from? If Plasma cosmology denies a beginning time, it will still have to account for the creation of matter. And it will have to do it now.
Can Plasma create matter? I don't know. I do know that there are a lot of basement inventors trying to get energy from the Aether. And it does seem like they are not entirely unsuccessful. What they do seem to be able to do is create a tiny quantity of above unity energies. But if that is so, then a star would also create a relatively tiny quantity of above unity energy too. But effect means cause, so where is this energy coming from? It cannot be coming from conventional sources, science would have found it long ago.
Hal Puthoff in 1987 showed how the ground state of the hydrogen atom derives energy from the ZPE. Recall that the atom is moving and the effect of moving requires something that is moving it. The ZPE is the Aether with a different name. So all those atoms in a star are deriving balancing energies from the ZPE. who is to say that sme sort of simple mechanical mechanism, say, isn't responsible for the creation of extra energy? If that is so, and the observations at the very least point to that, then Plasma cosmology has no need for a beginning that occured in the past which doesn't exist anymore. Now is all that is happening, and now always what was happening. Now does not have a beginning, or an end, See Schroedinger. That is how the domain of Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning.
Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning without a cause.
ASSUMPTION THREESince every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.
Is this right? Doesn't "evolving" mean evolving from what? If so we are at the beginning again. What does "evolve" really mean? It comes from Darwin, and he meant it to mean from simple to complex. That much is obvious, How this happens is not so obvious. Accidently? Self organization? Does plasma cosmology assume the Universe evolves? What do we mean when we say Universe in this context? If we mean that the parts of the Universe are evolving are we also meaning the Univertse as a whole is evolving?
At any rate, assumptions are taken as true without proof, so we don't need to justify the assumption. However, Plasma cosmology does not assume evolution, it describes it. Tommy Mandel 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Working my way into the article, I added Hubble's thoughts on standard interpretations of his law, and also added Tifft's quantized redshift. Interesting that these were left out, they are key evidence. Then I got to this
I don't understand your reasoning, one of the major assumptions of the standard theory is that redshift is Doppler induced. This leads to the conjecture of expansion. A quantized redshift is not consistent with a Doppler interpretation which predicts a random distribution, as well as expansion, which would blur the spectral lines. Without expansion there is no need to go back in time for the beginning. And this is one of PC's assumptions - there was no big bang moment. Quantized redshift is observational evidence which supports our assumption. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?
I acknowledge and agree that commentary should be justified and backed up with proper citations. What you are asking is to essentially write a scientific paper, and to top it off, you want it in a couple sentences. OK.
In his paper titled REDSHIFT PERIODICITIES, THE GALAXY-QUASAR CONNECTION, W. G. Tifft discusses his observations of quantized redshift. He write:
"Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars."
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613
This was confirmed by M.B. Bell1 and S.P. Comeau1 as reported in their paper "Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is the Great Attractor a Myth?" They write in their abstract: "Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow." Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305112
And Napier W.M A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims
"...that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them." Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)
So what is producing the redshift?
"The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams. You can find papers including references in arxiv.org, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press)."
http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.pdf
A Major Cosmic Surprise: New Cosmic Model Predicts Enhanced Brightness of Galaxies, SN, Quasars and GRBs With z > 10 Robert V. Gentry∗ The Orion Foundation, P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912 (Dated: April 1, 2002)
Bahcall [1] has enthused “The Big Bang is bang on” because recent Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) measurements [2] at z = 2.34 match its prediction of 9.1 K. He laments, however, this means he and like-minded colleagues will now miss the excitement of searching for a new cosmic model. His lament is premature. This Letter explores the exciting prospect that the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI), a relatively new cosmic model [3], equally qualifies as being ‘bang on,’ first because it accounts for the 2.73 K CBR locally, plus the more recent measurements at z = 2.34 and z = 3.025 [4]. Secondly, because it provides a new explanation of the enhanced brightness of high-z supernovae [5], and the dipole velocity distribution of radiogalaxies [6]. Thirdly, because it makes brightness predictions for even higher redshift (z > 10) objects that strongly suggest they should be detectable. And fourthly because, in a report that has thus far received scant attention [7], I describe what may be a potentially exciting discovery of evidence showing GPS operation reveals the universe is governed relativistically by Einstein’s static solution of the field equations, with its fixed in-flight photon wavelength (λ) prediction, and not big bang’s Friedmann-Lemaitre (F-L) solution, with its hypothesized in-flight λ variation and cosmological redshifts. Unless this discovery is refuted, then: (i) It follows that cosmological redshifts – upon which all of big bang is hinged – are not genuine physical phenomena and, (ii) an alternative astrophysical framework of the cosmos must exist that incorporates the Einstein static solution with its fixed in-flight λ, along with radically different initial conditions. " Tommy Mandel 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK Joshua, now what? How can we perfect this presentation such that it will meet with your approval in all the relevant entries of Wikipedia? Would you like me to summarize all of them? Right now, their own words are doing a good job. Perhaps you would like more? The above are the original sources, I've got plenty of interpretations we could discuss.
Also, I presume that you are a man of integrity, so it goes without saying that you favor the correct theory and disfavor the incorrect theory. Am I correct? So then you must agree that, in principle, quantized redshift (an observation) is infered/implied/predicted by the correct theory, and is not infered/implied/predicted by the incorrect theory. Correct?
Let me try it this way.
Do you agree that this accurately reflects the literature? Now, let's go to the subsequent implications...
Certainly, Joshua, these conclusions which nullify the standard theory, and justify the non-standard theories, one of which is Plasma Cosmology, must be, in order to preserve neutrality, inserted in all the appropriate places. So let us continue with your criticisms... Tommy Mandel 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Plasma cosmology conforms to every observed phenomenon except one. It does not account for the Hubble redshift, the very phenomenon (and the only one) that led to the development of the Big Bang. Dr. Lerner gives several theories that attempt to explain the Hubble shift in terms of the plasma universe, but none are firmly rooted in observed fact, like plasma theory itself. Fortunately, it does not matter. In architectural terms, the Big Bang is an incorrect structure. A broad, complex theory rests on an extremely narrow foundation, in fact, just one brick (the Hubble shift). The plasma universe, meanwhile, rests on an extremely broad foundation of observation. It does not require the creation of any new, exotic building materials, just the reliable concrete and steel of ordinary physics. If the "Hubble brick" is not added for a while, the building will not collapse. On the other hand, a light gust of solar wind (made of plasma, naturally) has brought the Big Bang building crashing to the ground. "
From http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbang3.html
Is this better?
Tommy Mandel 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just happen to notice that you reverted everything I did. You broke the deal, Joshua, I was going to ignore intrinsic redshift, non-standard cosmology and the big bang itself if you would have only left this alone. I am not bound anymore to stay away from those other entries. Thanks for taking the chains off...
Tommy Mandel 04:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy Mandel 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The future: Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter ΛCDM model of the big bang. However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that research into alternative cosmologies be funded.[41]
Obviously this needs to be rewritten but rather than do it then talk about it I'm going to do it here first.
Plasma is a fact. Plasma Cosmology as an observational and theoretical science is widely unknown. The Hubble Telescope has brought us fantastic views of what plasma looks like. It's effects on star formation, galaxy structure and large scale structures are only beginning to be appreciated. Plasma cosmology is widely unknown to most conventional cosmologists because of the lack of their expertise in electrical phenomenon, the lack of support from of those deeply involved with and committed to the standard theory. and the lack of research funding made available for research outside the academic mainstream. The signers of the Open Letter to the Scientific Community" conclude: "Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."
Tommy Mandel 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
(Our edits crossed Art, maybe i fixed it, look and see)
Tommy Mandel 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I found this ESA research into GR gravity fascinating, although it is only perhaps of peripheral relevance to this article; I figured most of you here would be interested in it. Jon 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled."
Are they saying that gravity and magnetics have something in common? Because if they are, then gravity may be an EMF of some sort...
Tommy Mandel 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has taken some interesting turns. Im glad to see it has continued to shape up in the face of constant criticism and sabatoge by BB proponents. Well done to those who continue to strive for the article! While there is still a lot of misinformation here, it is better than it was before. This is Ionized btw, one of the original plasma cosmologists who helped defend this page. Keep up the good work people! edit: ah well now I see why, thanks to Mr. Lerner and others. awesome
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey, Tommysun, would you clean up your edits?! Point 1, there are duplications that I can't make heads nor tails of. Point 2, they are much too long to figure out what your main points are. If you want us (or me, at least) to pay attention, pick your most important points and express them tersely. You can back them up if needed later, either in the Talk or, perhaps better, on a private page to which you can reference. -- Art Carlson 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
"Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background by invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas."
Are you telling me that this sentence is: a. grammatically correct? b. factually accurate? c. not misleading?
First of all, "large scale structure" is a singular "while evolution of the universe" is a universal. They should not be placed together the way that they are in the article. "From galasy formation to the cosmic microwave background", is a phrase and requires a comma, beginning and end. And "invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas" is referring to the laws of scale, which, I notice, is not even mentioned in the article. Tommysun 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the evolution of the universe, from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, and to large scale structure.
I question this statement, as it is, because it does not tell us if there are other explanations or not. Are these elaborated on in the text? And I do believe that using the phraseology "Adovocates of plasma cosmology" establishes a POV, and if so, then those advocates ought to be allowed to state their point of view. If not, then "advocates" should be removed.
Plasma was at work long before Maxwell formulated his equations.
I submit that ScienceApologist is pushing the big bang POV.
At least Eric is in the right place. SA, you really should go somewhere else, anywhere else, because it is clear that you do not belong here. Nor are you wanted here. Why don't you learn your science from those you admire. Science, contrary to popular belief, moves forward by working togethe. Competition and survival of the fittest in the human body is like cancer - tough to beat, devastating, and in the end, suicidal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun ( talk • contribs) .
So, I see the whole gang from the big bang pages is over here on the other side... What is a dark energy star? Quantized redshift means no expansion, no expansion means no big bang, no big bang means plasma cosmology is the future, and more than just of historical interest which all of you let slip by. Very clever you are. But not smart enough. And don't tell me I should act like you. No one knows what they are talking about, if they did, they wouldn't have to talk about it. There's a lot of people who know what I am talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun ( talk • contribs) .
Corrections needed:
Evolution of the universe is redundant in this sentence. "Proposed" is a better term than is "offered". I have never read a scientific papers that "offered" a position.
What the original authors were talking about is called "scaling." The phrase "invoking" is not appropriate.
The use of the term "standard cosmology" itself is not NPOV.
Electricity is the movement of free electrons too.
Plasmas are for Everyone. Gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations. The term plasma is for everyone and not just for specialists.Plasma is defined as a partially or fully ionized medium which exhibits collective effects due to interactions with electric and magnetic fields.Often, the solar wind is described as a "vast stream of ions" (neglecting electrons and the fields), strongly implying (incorrectly) a Navier-Stokes fluid. Plasmas are not simply a type of gas. Let's be more accurate and recognize as well that plasmas are for everyone. Found at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/NoPlasma.html
Amazing how twisting the language around can change the POV
Sounds fine to me. Once again, your alternative is ...? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If true then plasma and cosmolgy do not belong together.
How does "nearly all" imply "equal" importance?
When did "NOW" begin?
This is not correct. Some parts of the universe do not "evolve."
This poorly written.
Also poorly written.
Poorly written. How does one "propose" a "hypothesis"? A "theory" is proposed, hypothesis are stated.
The entire article is poorly written OR, it is cleverly slanted by twisting the language around such that what is being stated becomes confused thereby disabling the point being made.
Poorly written. I have never seen "easily" used an a scientific publication. Hypothesis are not accepted because the are "more easily". Attributing this confused comment to the "proponents" is insulting among other things.
Also poorly written. A perponderance of advocates does not constitute evidence of proof. As Thomas Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the prevailing paradigm is supported by the journals until such time it fails and the alternative is then accepted. The quantity of papers published is not evidence of accuracy. It is merely an idicator of who is in control.
Also obvious to me, this entry is not populated by the free, but is authoritarian. And the only way to get rid of authoritarianism is by revolution.
Tommysun 05:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Two editors User:Tommysun and User:Elerner refuse to talk about meaningful NPOV edits meant to address concerns associated with the tag. They simply revert my edits and the edit war has persisted. Maybe protection might help? -- ScienceApologist 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
ScienceApologist is wrong. ScienceApologist continually removes MY edits, I do not touch his. I am the one being wronged. ELerner is a plasma cosmologist, well known in his field. He does not support the big bang and has written a book The big bang never happened. ScienceApologist, by his own words, is a supporter of the big bang theory, yet he continually edits Plasma Cosmology such that it appears as a confused and incorrect presentation of the field. If this isn't conflict of interest, then there is no such rule. Wikipedia has been described elsewhere as being unreliable. Part of this is due to uneducated edits, I am sure. BUT a part of this unreliability also is the result of parties assuming editorial control on a subject, reverting all edits which they do not agree with. This is what is going on in our case. The end result is that some wikipedia entries have become political. If you read the entries for big bang, non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology, it becomes obvious that ALL the material fully supports the big bang and subsumes any and all other theories as "historical interest" only. So much for NPOV. Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have charged ScienceApologist with conflict of interest. He is, by his own words, a big bang supporter, yet he seems to consider himself in charge of editing the rival theory of Plasma Cosmology. Here is my proof:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3
"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC) And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist
Interesting, theory A becomes the one theory available,,, (and nothing else), by deleting the observations of Theory B...
Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Two claims made in the article have been patiently waiting references for a month. Eric has been asked to provide them repeatedly. He has not. If someone has references for them, please add them, but at this point, I think that the references need to be readily available or the prose needs to be removed. -- ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quote from non standard Cosmology. (I tried to add to this list and it was taken out right away. But anyway...)
"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein."
Now, how come you are in the history listings of both non-standard and big bang theory? What is it that you contributed to those lists? Tell us what you said about plasma theory over there? And are you the one who wrote "The non-standard theories are of historical interest only." Do you believe that? And who cleverly put "creation theory" (religion) at the top of the scientific list? Did you do that?
All three of these Wikipedia entries push Plasma physics to the back. The Universe is held together by gravity, but it works together by EMF which on the galactic scale is what is commonly called "Plasma."
Plasma is not something thing electrons flow through, come on, that's electricity. Plasma IS THE FLOWING of both ion and electrons outside an electrical ohmic conductor. EMF guys.
And about Eric's neutral (never knew that, thanks) atoms, in a plasma flowing, this is actually, in keeping with the principle of scaling, "plasma slurry". Did I spell that right? There is no reference because I just made this up.
Quoting from big bang entry--
"Frequently, people come on to this talk page and tell many of the regular editors of the big bang article that their theory is phisophically misguided, unfalsifiable, Ptolemaic, or already falsified. I can assure you that it is none of these things." –Joke 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Trust me...
"The fox guarding the hen"
The big bang as an explosion of matter has been falsified, that's why they came up with inflation which is unfalsifiable, all 21 versions of them...And you won't discuss or even acknowledge the Tifft redshift. Why? Because without Doppler redshift there is no evidence of expansion and without expansion there was no big bang. And without the big bang all that is left is plasma. Tifft redshift is not going away guys, in spite of your efforts to delete it. Some day your big bang bag of hot air is going to burst and the likes of you will turn out to be the laughing stock of the century. The sad part is that you, and all the big bang gang, may take science down with you.
Tommysun 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we tone down the conspiracy hysteria and focus on debating the science? Jon 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
and here is the proof ==
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3
And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist
Tommysun 20:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[Removed my erroronious charge] Tommy Mandel 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
AND Plasma is not a theory, it is an observational fact, and if big bang does not include it, then that alone is proof that big bang is incomplete and if it is incomplete then it isn't completely true. Think about this guys, big bang is a point of view itself, a point f view from the perspective of gravity. Plasma is not in theoretical competition with gravity, it is a complementary. Just the fact that big bang does not incorporate Plasma is proof that the big bang theory is not complete and thus not correct. Plasma will never get rid of gravity, except maybe to explain gravity in terms of EMF - considering that all matter is like balls of electrons which attract eachother. The existence of plasma is itself proof that the big bang is not valid.
Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Then how come "plasma" is not mentioned even once in the big bang section? And what about this quote by Jon?
Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't care what proponents say or think, what does the theory say? Citations, quotes, not hearsay, please.
Tommysun 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about the man on the moon, interesting that the rock formation on Mars looking like a face is resting on a perfectly formed symmetrical plateau, gosh, your uncle was what? Banjo's? Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- - So, you are a big bang supporter too? No wonder you find my stuff pointless, if you didn't you would have to find a new job. Things must be getting tough when one has to resort to ad hominum attacts, subtle or otherwise. Why aren't you with the big bangers? Why are you here? Why don't you go home? Your "widely accepted hypothesis" is based on assumptions. And slowly but surely is being hacked to pieces. See http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm - Doppler redshift is assumed. (which Hubble himself did not agree with) - Expansion is based on that assumption, and without direct evidence, is also an assumption. Backward extrapolation of expansion therefore is also an assumption. Leading to the hypothesis that all of the Universe started out at a point. Where did that point come from? A time when there was no time, a place where there was no place, and an event when probability was zero. Recall that the original big bang did not work out. In order to make this work, the point had to expand to the size of the Universe, and bigger, and without evidence is also an assumption. And then it stopped, how do you explain that? Gravity? If gravity stopped the expansion, how did the expansion accelerate this supposed gravitational mass to speeds vastly greater than the speed of light to begin with? Oh, the laws of physics didn't kick in yet, I suppose...And then how did it stop? Haven't heard the real answer to that one yet. As far as "evolution" is concerned, I don't believe in accidental "after the fact" conjectures, I am a synergy fan myself. You know, positive and negative in a relationship acts as a new whole...To listen to SOME of youse guys, I hear something like the Universe simply went "poof" and the rest just happened to happen. Tommysun 04:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You forget that I wrote the memo to VoA which prompted him to suggest our present procedure. And it was my suggestion to outline the discussion as heads as we (some) are doing. Maybe I should shout out "your big bang model, starting with a poof is ending with a poof"As far as hand waving see http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm. Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the bit about how plasma adherants tried in Nov to edit big bang, and now that means big bang can edit plasma? Yeah, I heard that. Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Didn't take long before I recognized the characteristic writing of a big banger --Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work.
May take a while but I will find out who put this into the aricle, betcha we know him very well.
Tommy Mandel 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And here it, is a revision by our favorite son justified as POV
"The study of astrophysical plasmas is part of the mainstream of academic astrophysics (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model). It is also distinct from (but plays a major role in) plasma cosmology, which states that plasmas are responsible for long-range interactions in the universe.
He removed the text shown in bold
Tommy Mandel 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the complete paragraph. The part in bold was added by the big bang gang
This is precisely what I'm talking about. Please stop bickering and polarising the argument and instead discuss the science. You are the one who is talking about attacks, camps, opposition, and so on. There is perfectly valid and solid science in both "camps". The rub is much more to do with what initial assumptions are being made, with how much confidence, and why. It is always difficult to go back once these assumptions are made, because it seems such a waste of everyone's combined effort over the decades. It is easier to try to modify ones assumptions to accommodate new data rather than rewrite them from scratch. This is more of a human political issue, but your conspiratorial rhetoric will not help convince anyone any more than will SA's authoritarian editorial grandstanding. By the way, I am confident in my own ability to think for myself and draw my own conclusions, rather than rely on anyone else's opinion. I am by no means a top scientist, and even if I was it is irrelevant. Einstein was a patent clerk, and Roger Penrose gave us magical quantum synapses to explain intelligence. Go figure. It would be really great if this article could avoid descending into a troll's nest again. Jon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
What's this Jon?
How do you explain this Jon? Come on, you didn't want to climb back into the hole, but then you talk like this? What are you doing? Tommy Mandel
Is that the best you can come up with Jon? I didn't start this fight, your friends started it, you and your friends have insulted me several times, but why you too? And I have yet to insult them back. Am I supposed to just sit back and take it without a word? I am trying to fight for Plasma cosmology, I am not fighting you. I just don't think it is ethical for bag bang people to come here and edit plasma cosmology, and especially with nonsense like "astronomers do not take plasma seriously" or however they put it. They say that I can edit big bang but that is not true, my stuff gets deleted within minutes, from big bang, non-standard cosmology and intrinsic redshift, and all I wanted to say is that there are observation which indicate that Doppler redshift is not proof of expansion, just kike Hubble himself said up to when he passed away. If Doppler redshift is not real, the entire house of big bang cards will fall, and that is going to hurt a lot of people, schools, texts, and the reputation of Western science. But they dug themselves into the hole they are in. And when big bang falls, which cosmology will rise to the occsion? Plasma is not a theory, Jon, it is a fact. It is not something one believes in or does not believe in, it is a fact. And the fact is that big bang does not consider it, contrary to Art's opinion that plasma is mentioned four times. The plasma that is mentioned is quark plasma, and once that plasma cools, there is no more reference to plasma, period. Just because almost everyone does not consider it is more telling about them than it is about plasma. Furthermore, it has been said many times in the literature, that great minds have always been battled by little minds, Einstein said that. I have no idea what is going through your mind when you attack me, but the more I am attacked the more I relaize I am on target. Tommy Mandel 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the participants seem to relish attacking me as a person. Notice, however, that hardly anyone has attacked my ideas, instead they have ignored them or deleted them. I am not going to go away, regardless of what you all tell me to do. To be honest, I am not a cosmologist, I am a writer. And I am a reader. I have read upwards of five hundred books on science. Unfortunately, I do not have a good memory which sometimes is a good thing. It is this "reader" aspect that compels me to enter into this discussion. Frankly, I don't believe much of what I read here. I don't find what I read here written in the literature like it is here. What I have read here, and in "non-standard cosmology" and "intrinsic redshift" and "big bang", is obviously slanted toward the standard theory. That puzzles me because the writing is supposed to be NPOV. I don't know what to think about this "NPOV" concept, especially in cases such as this where there are in fact opposing points of view. How can, for example, one be neutral about Democrats and Republicans? Or, in a technical sense. positive and negative chatges? Are we expected to talk about electricity as if it were neutral? I believe that what we should be striving for is "balance". Because a two volt positive charge on the one hand and a two volt negative charge on the other hand is neutral. But this neutrality is only achieved by both together. There is in fact a controversy about cosmology, it is not accurate to claim that there is only one theory and the other theory has been discredited. That is not being neutral in my opinion.
I have been accused of being inane and my arguments have been thought of as pointless. But let's take a look at them and let the reader judge for himself:
I argue that
(A)the definition of plasma is incorrect. Presently, plasma has been defined here as "Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely..." Having worked in electronics in the Dept of the Navy for many years, I KNOW this is incorrect.
(B) It has been claimed here that Plasma is a gas. I suppose there are situations which plasma can be regarded as a gas, but historically plasma has been regarded as a fourth state or phase of matter. Eric informs us that neutral atoms can take part in a plasma flow, but dust can occur in air, and water in ice. Water in ice is not a solid. That is why I used the term "slurry". As a reader, calling plasma a gas would not be informative to me, it would be misleading if I didn't know better. Many, even NASA, have called plasma a gas. This does not make it right. You can call it "like a gas" and be in the ballpark, but to call it a gas is to ignore prior research. Ignoring prior research is not being scientific.
(C) A definition of terms is standard procedure in any article. Much confusion arises due to misunderstanding. It is better not to assume that everyone will know what a particular term means or how it is being used. What does the term "work" mean? A good dictionary will have at least one hundred different usages of "work." An encyclopedia, if it is a good one, will define the term immediately. It will not place it several sentences later.
(D) Good writing does not intermix catagories, It is not good writing to say the party was attended by John, Mary, other people and George.
(E) Plasma cosmology does not have a beginning. This is very controversial, at least here. But if you look at the science of plasma, it speaks of what is happening now. The idea of a beginning of plasma does not figure into the equations describing plasma. NOW does not have a beginning, but can anyone argue that NOW does not exist? Or that because it does not have a beginning it is not real? NOW is all that exists. My guess that the big bang theory has a beginning is only an assumption which I will discuss below.
(F) I am not saying that a galaxy or a star does not have a beginning. The Universe is a abstract entity. A star is very concrete to use Whitehead's term. The question I believe boils dow to does matter have a beginning? The big bang theory postulates that ALL matter was created at the beginning. This leads to several constraints and problems. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure how matter is created, but I heard that gamma rays brushing up against protons can create electron pairs.
(G) As I understand it, the big bang is very dependant on General Relativity, and it has been said that GR postulates a singularity. It is apparently this singularity from which comes the big bang moment. But I also read that GR does not specify how large this singularity has to be, nor when it must occur. I also read in one of the Inflation papers that, given this ambiguity, it is possible to have several singularities, and many can many mean a lot. So this particular version of Inflation theory postulates that singularities may be occuring all over the place. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that perhaps a singularity occured at the center of each galaxy.
(H) Does matter flow in or out of a galaxy? Does anyone know? Observations show matter flowing outward. A recent paper describing the x-ray halo around our galaxy admits that finding instances of matter flowing inward has been difficult. But finding matter/energy flowing outward is easy. Indeed almost every galaxy has matter flowing outward. A gravity based theory has to explain this in terms of matter flowing inward, hence the black hole accretion disk.
(I) A black hole hs never been observed. What is observed is a tremendous OUTWARD flow of matter. Proga teaches that a black hole is a conjecture devised to explain this outflow. He admits, nay, paints a 48 point type in red lettering "ASSUMED" over the paragraph first describing the black hole in his PPT presentation.
(J) Doppler redshift was not proved by Hubble. Hubble himself did not believe that redshift meant expansion. To his dying day he argued against that interpretation. He said that there must be an unknown reason for the redshift. Why isn't that stated nowadays?
(K) Which Inflation theory is correct? There are twenty one (21) different versions.
(L) Why was Inflation necessary to begin with? Because the original big bang didn't work. This is stated by all of the Inflation authors.
(M) I have a problem with Inflation in that how could space with matter in any form be accelerated to speeds required to create a universe larger than ours (flatness) and then stop? Even light doesn't do this. So what was it that was accelerated? And how did it just stop? I hear that gravity stopped it, well, then it must be ordinary matter, so how did it get accelerated to start with?
(N) I read that as the radiation cooled down a plasma made of quarks and gluons formed, Well, a quark is a particle theory "object", and the gluon is a "relationship force". So Methinks that when there are free quarks, there are no gluons. But what do I know.
(O)If light cooled down to form a quark-gluon plasma, where did the electrons come from?
(P) Remember that expansion was slowed by gravity meaning that matter was slowed. So, at some point we have matter/light still expanding at speeds vastly greater than light. OK, Newton's laws of motion apply, how can gravity pull this matter together when there is a vastly greater force moving matter in its original direction?
(Q) Galaxy Rotation. I am assuming that it is widely believed that matter is collected by a galaxy, that it is flowing inward such that a spiral galaxy may be likened to the whirpool seen in water moving down a drain in a sink. But there is an alternative interpretation, the matter could also be moving outward much like one of those fourth of July spinners.
(R) That there are colliding galaxies is based on the assumption that matter moves inward toward the center of the galaxy. Butif matter is moving outward, then the colliding galaxies are actually bifurcating galaxies.
(S) This is just a personal opinion, but I have never seen an instance of a galaxy which looks like matter is flowing inward.
(T) If gravity can form galaxies, how come we have such a thing as a globular cluster which doesn't look to me like the stars are moving inward?
(U) How come astronomers find stars/galaxies being ejected from galaxies?
(V) How come galaxies are pouring out tremendous outflows of matter some exceeding the speed of light?
(W)If, in the beginning, apace and primordial matter came from nothing, why can't this happen today?
(X)If matter/energy were created in the center of a star, then all of these questions are easily answered,
(Y)But what mechanism is responsible? What powers atomic particles forever? Why was Maxwell simplified?
(Z) Physicists such as Bohm and many others talk about a fifth dimension, a hyper dimension, a quantum ground, a Dirac Sea, a zero point energy, what Maxwell called the Aether, what I prefer to calll the INSIDE of empty space. Can this happen in the center of a galaxy?
I used up my time. Now, who can show me my errors in thinking?
Tommy Mandel 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
But when you come here pretending to be knowledgable editors, when actually all you are doing is confusing the issue by embroiling the real expert in essentially irrelavent detail, then the question of ethics arises, and of course I am a sonofabitch for pointing that out.
Do you realise I support plasma cosmology? Jon 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy, you have some interesting points, but too many for everyone to address at one time. I think the best approach, is to discuss one point at a time, AND, include a verifiable citation where appropriate, or requested. -- Iantresman 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ref: astro-ph/9812144 From: Halton Arp [view email] Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:41:55 GMT (110kb)
Redshifts of New Galaxies Authors: Halton Arp Comments: Invited review talk at the 194th IAU Symp. on "Activity in galaxies and related phenomena", held in Byurakan, Armenia, August 17-21, 1998, Eds. Y.Terzian, E.Khachikian, and D.Weedman, PASP Conf. Series, in press
Now, obviously gravity will not do this, can plasma do that? There is an anamoly observed on our Sun, which is a star. Observation shows that the coronosphere can be hundreds of times hotter that the photosphere. How can cool make hot? Well, I have a pet theory about this one, Tommy Mandel 18:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Been there, ScienceApologist deleted, without discussion, what I had to say...Probably because quantized redshift and expansion are mutually exclusive...You know, I have noticed over the years that many theorists seem to want their pet theory to be all encompassing. Take plasma cosmology, is EVERYTING plasma? I don't think so, gravity does play a role too. But gravity also suffers in that it is trying to explain everything in terms of gravity when everyone know plasma plays a role too. Cosmology will end including both plasma and gravity. I tried to introduce generic cosmology but that was deleted too, Joke was in on that I think. I am a system theorist, which is a multidisciplinary science. Leading edge science is acknowledging to a degree that there are many aspects to any reality. Instead of trying to exclude others we try to sweep in others. Reality does not have the divisions our object oriented sciences have invented. I suppose the problem has to do with the "survival of the survivers" concept some believe in. One has to go to Russian science to find notions like symbiosis and synergy which in English means "working together." Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.--"Jimbo Wales From: NPOV and 'new physics' Fri Sep 26 13:08:16 UTC 2003 -- DV8 2XL 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to move the irrelevant stuff to the top, and moved the real discussion as a group toward the end. If this looks good, maybe the last half can be reorganized better again. For that matter, the above could be archived as far as I am concerned. Tommy Mandel 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Two claims made in the article have been patiently waiting references for a month. Eric has been asked to provide them repeatedly. He has not. If someone has references for them, please add them, but at this point, I think that the references need to be readily available or the prose needs to be removed. -- ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to Ian for referencing the first quote. It was sorely needed and now it's done. Was that so hard?
Secondly, I continue to see refusal on the part of Mr. Lerner to address my points. They are, in turn:
These points all seem very non-controversial to me. I respectfully ask that they be discussed rather than simply reverted.
Thanks,
-- ScienceApologist 13:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I can answer the first point. Regarding [Magnetohydrodynamics], Alfvén and co-author Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, wrote in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics (1952, 2nd Ed.): "It should be noted that the fundamental equations of magnetohydrodynamics rest on the assumption that the conducting medium can be considered as a fluid. This is an important limitation, for if the medium is a plasma it is sometimes necessary to use a microscopic description in which the motion of the constituent particles is taken into account. Examples of plasma phenomena invalidating a hydromagnetic description are ambipolar diffusion, electron runaway, and generation of microwaves". In other words, MHD may not lead to correct results when applied to low-density cosmic plasmas."
I suppose that a loose analogy would be the use of Newtonian physics to get a spacecraft to Mars, but that you need to introduce Einstein when speeds approach that of light. In other words, MHD (what Alfvén called a magnetic field description) often works, but sometime you need to use an electric field description, to model other phenomenon. There is an extension of MHD called Hall-MHD which is takes the electric field description into account.
As for the laundary list, let's put it back for now, add a reference, and I'll find one over the weekend. -- Iantresman 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Including the material on Alfven and MHD is important because it informs the historical development of plasma cosmology. It is the same as including (for example) a brief description of Newton to help explain how Relativity was developed, or describing continental drift to explain plate tectonics. Jon 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It also doesn't actually matter what Lieu believes or what he concluded. The important point is that his data supports a plasma cosmology prediction. Eric (rightly and respectfully) does not discuss what Lieu concluded from his data because that is actually irrelevant to the point in question. Just because two people see the same numbers and conclude two separate things based on what they believe to be true, doesn't mean Lieu's paper cannot be referenced for the data it contains. Just because it sticks in Joshua's craw is no reason for him to censor it from this article. Jon 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP entry "Plasma (physics) "The dynamics of plasmas interacting with external and self-generated magnetic fields are studied in the academic discipline of magnetohydrodynamics." Tommysun 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Eric, van Flandern pointed out to me that the concept of a beginning is not necessarily a necessary in astronomy. I've been thinking about that and I wonder if the words "Plasma" and "cosmology" actually belong together.Would you email me please? I have a couple of things I would like t discuss with you. Tommysun 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Joshua has obtained protection of his version of the article. I am requesting unprotection of this page. I responded fully to Joshua(ScienceAplogist) continued reverts on the talk page. This response has been now moved to the archive since it was before March 9. Protection has simply served to take ScienceApologist's side. He is unsupported in his changes by anyone else's edits. He is getting his way as a minority of one by continually reverting and now getting the page protected with his changes in place.
Elerner
05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous--you know I've replied at length. Here is the exchange again:
Cleaning up Joshua's mess
I re-instated again the early history of PC which traces to Aflven's pointing out the limitations of MHD. I put back in "big bang theory" since the theory itself relies on new physics, such as inflation and baryon non conservation to be even vaguely consistent with obervations. I replaced Lieu's interpretation of his own data in his own paper, while eliminating Joshua's unverifiable quote.
I also eliminated Joshua's unfactual description of the open letter on cosmology. A glance at the signers list will show that it can not be described as 'plasma cosmology advocates". Would that there were several hundred of those! But there are not.
I'll return to the GR reference next time I'm at the library. No doubt we will now have a series of reverts by Joshua.Elerner 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, I also removed the refernce to "largest voids" since the reference given does not refer to them. And I changed "most astronmers" believe WMAP problems are due to foreground to "some astronomers" becauses there is no reference to a peer-reviewed poll of astronomers and the issue is clearly actively debated with lots of papers on both sides.Elerner 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Eric's rationale and why I reinstated everything but one point:
* o + I don't mind the early history including Alfven's ideas about the "limitations" of MHD, but the prose did not indicate this and rather seemed to indicate that MHD was somehow part of plasma cosmology. Since it is really separate I removed the prose, and will try to instate sentences that indicate a divergeance from Alfven's much more famous ideas.
The prose is quite clear that the later work came out of Alfven's clear recognition of the limitations of the MHD approach, which he had developed. Anyone who is literate can see that.EL
Too bad the prose is irrelevant. EL ignores my point again. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The prose is only irrelevant in your opinion. It seems perfectly relevant to a description of plasma cosmology to me. Please describe here for our benefit why you think it is irrelevant. Jon 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that we are writing according to Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no reason to include MHD here especially because pc advocates explicitly don't use it. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + It's the Lambda-CDM model that relies on new physics. The Big Bang itself is strictly a GR-based expanding FLRW metric.
Nope, the Big bang includes inflation, which is new physics. Without inflation the Big Bang predicts a grossly anisotropic CBR because of the horizon problem and would be in gross contradiction to observations. Also the Big Bang requires baryon non-conservation, which is new physics. Otherwise nearly everything would have annihilated itself. EL
Nope, the Big bang need not include inflation. Besides expanded versions of Lambda-CDM include parameters for inflation as well. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The quote is totally verifiable as stated in WP:V.
Your quote refers to an entirely different paper by Lieu on a completely different subject. EL
Ostriker-Vishniak vs. Sunyaev-Zeldovich, touche. However, the gesture is later and the same: Lieu believes the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + Many of the people on the list aren't even astronomers and some aren't scientists. The ones that we are interested with for this page are the plasma cosmology advocates.
Ridiculous. Read the list. An insignificant fraction have ever commented about plasma cosmology. Here are some of the institutions that signatories are associated with; Armenzano Observatory; Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University; Danish Space Research Institute; Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ; European Southern Observatory; Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics; High Altitude Observatory, NCAR ; Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica ; Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik; Observatoire de Lyon; Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Service d'Astrophysique, CEA; Space Research Institute, Russia; Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS; Università di Bari ; Cambridge University; College de France; Cornell University; Indian Institute of Technology; Padua University; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Jet Propulsion Laboratory--EL
Ridiculous snowballing. Many of the people who signed haven't ever taken an astronomy class in college -- the list is a meaningless charade. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The reference given does refer to voids of the order of magnitude of the largest.
Absolutely not true. Provide a quote. I read these references. --EL
Then you missed the fact that their voids were dozens of megaparsecs in length? --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
* o + The foreground arguments regarding low-ls seem to have the preponderance of papers in the community. There are astonishingly few papers written arguing that this represents a problem for vanilla banana. I often get the impression that Eric is a selective reader of the journals. Not surprising, but this kind of advocacy shouldn't be tolerated as an editorial excuse.
Prove it. Count the papers. There are tons that say the non-Gaussianity is in the real data and can't be MW contamination. Also, for your sentence to be true, it would have to be the opinion of "most astronomers" not most people who have published papers in the field. But it is not true in either case. --EL
Well, of the last 15 or so I read on astro-ph in the last year, I can recall less than half making a claim that the CMB is a local phenomenon because of this. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, I reverted since Eric has made some rather underhanded reverts as per his usual "game-playing". Please address the issues I outlined above rather than reverting from the hip. Talking about these things is always better than edit warring.:--ScienceApologist 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For the above reasons, I have reverted all of Joshua's reverts.Elerner 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"
-- Elerner 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Elerner 17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll notice that the last person to respond to each point was myself. Since then you have opted out of the discussion. --
ScienceApologist
18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologetics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Colloquial usage Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. Tommysun 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages or images so that they cannot be modified except by other admins (the link "Edit this page" is replaced by a link "View source" when viewed by non-admins). This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.
and it continues with--
Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
Tommysun 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, Voice of All, who froze the page, say that we can edit it if we reach a consensus, which specifically does not have to include Joshua, if the rest of us agree. So I suggest that we agree on Tommysun's last version, with the exception of the definition of plasma. Can I try again here on that: "Plasma is a state of matter where electrons and ions can move freely, and carry currents."? What do the rest think? Elerner 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been avoiding editing this page for a while. I have a few comments:
– Joke 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with VoA's proposal. I submit that Joshua supports the big bang interpretation and his vote here in Plasma Cosmology should be taken with a grain of salt too. He is right that I know very little about Wikipedia, but I do know how to write. I concede that my keyboard doesn't.
I propose that we start at the beginning. The beginning sets the stage so to speak, and it is very important to the reader. It cannot be assumed that a reader is familair with the subject and thus will be able to "read in" the facts appropriately.
For example, the present definition of plasma is actually a definition of electricity. Plasma is different from electricity in that it usually has both ions and electrons flowing as a current without a conductor.
I propose that each proposal up for vote have it's own heading. Therefore, allow me to begin with my suggestion
Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma is a freely flowing electrons and ions. The Universe consists mainly of plasma, which is found in our Sun, the stars, the galaxies, and throughout space. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for galaxy formation, the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure and, in general, the development of the universe. Plasma, as (a)cosmology, is conventionally thought of as a non-standard cosmology as opposed to the standard big bang theory.[1] Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Can we really use wikipedia as a source? Read further and they clear it up somewhat. Sorry I cannot trust wikipedia's definition of Plasma. Plasma is not a gas, it is a current flow. You don't fill a neon bulb with plasma.
If it were a gas, then it couldn't be called a fourth state of matter. Are we going to change that notion of a fourth state too? Also, is matter (in general) and plasma the same thing? Tommysun 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. Is a neon bulb filled with plasma? Or does plasma flow when you light it? Everyone else calls it a fourth state of matter, why do you want to change that?
from http://www.plasmas.org/rot-plasmas.htm Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommysun, I think SA and I know perfectly well what a plasma is. Perhaps if you are having trouble understanding, and don't find us credible, you should ask one of the users of Wikipedia who are professional plasma physicists. At least three come to mind: Art Carlson, Craig DeForest and Eric Lerner. – Joke 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What I have trouble understanding is why are big bang people over here? For that reason I DO NOT FIND SA credible, I am neutral about Joke, and I find Art to be honest. Sometimes, when one is deeply involved in a subject, the obvious gets taken for granted, and subsequently often is ignored. The whole idea of this work is to define plasma and then elaborate. So when the expert defines plasma as "an ionized state of matter" well, believe me, the reader will have no clue about what he means. And doesn't "ionized" exclude electrons, hmmm? Tommysun 05:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a friend too... http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/#plasma
Tommysun 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing for "current flow" I have taken that out. What I am arguing is that plasma is not a gas.
This is not intended as a suggested introduction. But to clarify: Plasmas may be solid (crystaline) [1] as well as gaeous. Plasmas do NOT follow gas laws (although gas laws may sometimes approximate); "Maxwell equations for electromagnetism and the plasma Boltzmann equation are the basic equations for studies of electromagnetic systems of which plasmas are a prime example" [2]. A plasma is a substance in which sufficient atoms or molecules have been ionized allowing charges to flow freely. A partially ionized gas, in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized, may be considered to be, and behave as a plasma (there are other factors too). For example, a 1% ionized gas may be highly electrically conductive. A plasma may also contain unequal numbers of oppositely charged particles (eg. particle beams). -- Iantresman 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me point out that on the current course, we will not get consensus on anything and the article will just be frozen the way Joshua wants it. I suggest that we start by taking each one of Joshua's disputed edits in turn and vote on them. If we get some lopsided votes on some, let's call it consensus and change it. Then we can turn to Tommysun's edits and the definition of plasma and see if we can get a lopsided vote on one definition. I don't know what VOA calls consensus other than it does not mean unanimous and probably does not mean a 3-2 vote. So can people just weigh in on this procedural question? Can we get consensus on that? Elerner 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think, SA, what VoA was trying to do is prevent you from stopping us...
Eric, why don't you simply make a list of major headings to be discussed, and then we all can edit/discuss whatever we want whenever we want. It may be useful to include the sentence or paragraph as the first entry under each heading as the working edit.
Tommysun 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well let's try it out, shall we?
As User:ScienceApologist notes, we should take note of this from the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page:
Sorry for the large quote, but it is quite relevant :) Jon 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate "Building on the work of Kristian Birkeland,"
Justification: Birkeland was the first to point out the role of cosmic plasma and Alfven did , in his own view, build on Birkeland's work. There is no reason to eliminate this part of PC's history. Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
Reinstate: "- Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas.These include:
Justification: This is all described at great length in the Cosmic Electrodynamics book, which is referenced in the notes. Alfven thought these were the most important features of plasma behavior on cosmic scales.Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
but agree Tommysun 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete: "(including the largest walls and voids)"
Justification: The cited references show that the largest voids are 100 Mpc. Even by Joshua's own account, the largest voids in the simulations are 35 Mpc (and I see no mention of that number in his references.) 35Mpc is, by a factor of 3, less than 100 Mpc, so the statement is not verifiable (nor true) and needs to go. Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
Let's start with those three. Please vote now. Elerner 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I feel a bit like I'm sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but please hear me out:
The overview gives three assumptions as lying at the core of plasma cosmology. The first I'm sceptical of because it ignores the fact that on the largest scales the charges even out, but then I can see that the claim that they don't is what makes plasma cosmology different.
The second and third, however, don't strike me as all that scientific at all. I don't really see how they help to make testable predictions (OK, the third makes the "prediction" that "the universe is evolving", but that's not exactly very specific). They're more like the sort of argument-from-incredulity stuff that I'm more used to seeing from Creationists as reasons why the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and unbelievable.
As far as I can see, the "EM and gravitation are equally important on the largest scales" assumption is enough to get the important predictions of plasma cosmology in its broadest terms. The others just make the theory look cranky to be honest, particularly number two which just looks like a huge bit of begging the question: "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". For all that I'm deeply sceptical of PC, I do believe that (unlike Creationism) it's ultimately an honest intellectual enterprise, but this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Creationists indulge in.
Are the latter two assumptions just badly stated? Or are they not in fact fundamental principles of plasma cosmology as a theory, but rather philosophical reasons why its supporters are attracted to it and dissatisfied by the Big Bang? Surely, if plasma cosmology is a science, it should stand or fall on whether it's the best available explanation of the evidence, not whether it's philosophically pleasing?
Oh, and in the caption of the snapshots from the Perratt galaxy formation sim, shouldn't "kps" be "kpc"? -- Bth 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Concerning "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". how come the big bang theory can assume Doppler redshift to be true, and therefore the big bang is true?
Tommysun
16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Evolution" is a biological term. And that theory is questionable itself when "selection" is regarded as an evolutionary principle because, listen to this, "Selection is AFTER THE FACT." Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why, because selection is in fact "after the fact"? Need I explain this? Selection does not occur until AFTER the evolutionary integration occurs. So, what is the evolutionary integration? Random chance? Mutation? And that's it? Hardly, symbiosis, synergy, wholistic systems is more like it.-- Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I see we are unprotected by Jossi again and that Joshua is going along with the crowd. So let's move right along and see what everyone thinks about the rest of Joshua's disputed changes.
Reinstate Lieu's direct quote:
Justification: This is a direct quote from the article in question. Joshua's quotes are from an EARLIER interveiw relating to an entirely different paper by Lieu. Lieu's comments in that interveiw are not about his own beliefs, it is about what he feels are the implications of the work he was interveiwed about, which was entirely different than the work we are concerned with here. There is just no justification for dragging that other work in by the tail and excluding Lieu's own views about the signifigance of THIS work.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC) agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why paraphrase on a controversial issue, when we have a short quote? Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This is as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contradiction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CMB originates at extreme distances. --> this prose is unacceptable unless a source for this can be cited. -- ScienceApologist 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate "Some astronomers believe that the alignments ..." in the paragrpah about the WMAP alingments.
Justification: I was able to find only TWO papers in arXiv claiming that these results were due to foreground in the two years since this was first reported. Maybe there are more. But in just the last month, there were two papers completely ruling out foreground contamination. So saying that "some astronmers " think this when it cleary is not a majority veiw, seems fair.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just saying WHO pointed this out--it was not God, it was some--actually a few--astronomers. Here are four very recent citations, just astro-ph numbers and four from last year: 0603369, 0601427, 0603308, 0603367, 0502237, 0508047, 0503442, 0511802. Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here is my take. The papers 0511802 and 0601427 are about non-Gaussianity, not about the quadrupole and octopole, which is a different, though related, discussion. The problem with the other papers (0503442, 0603367, and 0502237, 0603308) is that rather than marginalizing over foregrounds, they use so-called foreground cleaned maps, such as the WMAP Internal Linear Combination map, the Tegmark foreground cleaned map, or the wavelet cleaned map of 0603308. Nobody disputes that the effect is in these maps. The question is whether the errors induced in the foreground subtracted map are properly accounted for. The four papers I consider authoritative are Slosar and Seljak (0404567), Bielewicz et al. (0507186), Copi et al. (0508047), and Tegmark and de Oliveira-Costa (0603369, which is spanking new!). They obtain similar results and come to very different conclusions. From Slosar and Seljak,
from Bielewicz,
from Copi,
from Tegmark,
Obviously, although these papers come to mutually consistent conclusions, they interpret the same observations in very different ways. They all confirm that the quadrupole and octopole are aligned with a significance of 1–2% in the so-called "cleaned" maps, with a somewhat less significant alignment with the ecliptic, and that the signficance is reduced when a more detailed analysis with a careful treatment of foregrounds is performed. Their interpretation of this result differs. Slosar and Seljak indicate that it eliminates evidence for alignment; Bielewicz thinks that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is confirmed, but not the ecliptic alignment; Copi thinks that the alignment with the ecliptic is very robust, despite agreeing his results are consistent with Slosar and Bielewicz; Tegmark suggest that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is robust and does not consider the ecliptic. Maybe we'll learn more about it Thursday at noon, but I doubt it. – Joke 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Reinstate:
Justification: It is plain wrong to describe the signers of the Open Letter as supporters of alternative cosmology. Some of them are, but most are not. Two hundred and fifty of them--"many"--are scientists or engineers associated with instituions, all but a handful of them being universites, or government or corporate research insitutions. Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue.
Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree with Eric Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jon 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
How about the more quantitative: "However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded." Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply quote the article and be done with it? That would be an honest way to deal with it. It reads: "Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe." Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to conventional cosmology. --> this statement is obviously not NPOV. There is no independent corroboration that such a statement is correct. It could be that all the alternative cosmology developers are all incapable of producing good work. (I'm not saying that they are, only that it's not NPOV to claim that the hampering is due to exclusive allocation of funding.) -- ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded. --> cosmologies aren't "funded", grants are given to scientists and research groups. This kind of wording is exceedingly problematic. -- ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Quote EL: "Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue." --> Eric, can you name one person who signed the statement who supports the Big Bang? -- ScienceApologist 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know enough about these areas of the subject to answer. -- Iantresman 10:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is what scientists can do. Notive how their simulation looks just like a galaxy Tommysun 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
In 1974, Alfvén's theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora, based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland, was confirmed by satellite, and Birkeland currents were discovered. Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work. Alfvén subsequently highlighted the importance of treating astrophsyical plasmas as such, writing... [11]:
This comment (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model).is suspicious, as if added on as an afterthought.
Tommy Mandel 07:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if they found Zero point energy yet...
Tommy Mandel 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
They did already, the serpent people from the planet Klattoo gave it to the US government in the 50s, they've been covering it up ever since. Jon 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well done Joke137 with the footnotes, I'm sure it was tedious to re-do, but very worthwhile. Having done a few articles with lots of footnotes, I'm going off to learn about the new footnote module. -- Iantresman 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I hate to quibble (generally Joke's last edits are fine.) But it is RESEARCH, not researchers, that is not being funded. Quite a few scientists are getting funding for other work that does not involve alternate cosmology, but can't get funded for research that does. So this phrase is more accurate. Also , we are talking about a specifc statement and that is what it says --investigations, not investigators. Elerner 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So I finally got Hawking and Ellis at the library and it is educational to see what their argument actually is. It is NOT a proof that GR predicts the expansion of the universe, so the statement in the article is clearly wrong as it stands.
In section 10.1, H&E refer to an earlier (in the book) proof of the existence of singularities in gravitational collapse and then apply this to the universe:
“Thus one might expect that the conditions of theorem 2 will be satisfied in the reverse direction of time on cosmological scale, providing that the universe is in some sense sufficiently symmetrical and contains a sufficient amount of matter to give rise to closed trapped surfaces.” So these two assumptions are necessary for the proof. Now H&E set out to prove that those conditions apply, not from the mathematics of GR, but from observations of the CBR, and assumptions about it:
“We shall give two arguments to shows that this indeed seems to be the case. Both arguments are based on the observations of the microwave background…”
They immediately state the assumption that the universe is transparent in microwave frequencies to 10^27 cm, so this is the first assumption of their proof. They justify this by saying that we can observe discrete sources at this distance. (This clearly does not follow, since we can observe sufficiently bright UV sources through dust that highly absorbs them and the same can be true at microwave wavelengths.)
They then describe their first argument, that since the universe is transparent and since the CBR is highly isotropic, the universe that produced the CBR is close to an FRW metric.
In the proof of this theorem, they explicitly use the assumption that the radiation is freely propagating. In addition, they introduce a second assumption that the matter—the galaxies—can be approximated by a smooth fluid of constant density. In other words they assume it does have a finite, constant average density—is homogenous.
Then they introduce a third assumption that the cosmological constant is zero. Now they put all these things together and get the unsurprising result that in an isotropic, homogenous(non-zero density) universe without cosmological constant, you can always find a large enough radius that the matter within that radius exceeds the Schwarzschild mass and so is a closed surface. Thus if it is a closed surface, it must collapse to a singularity (or expand form one.)
So, far from being a “generic prediction of GR”, this proof requires 3 additional explicit assumptions—a universe transparent at microwave frequencies, a finite average density, and a zero cosmological constant. Clearly none of these assumptions is necessarily true. Both my work on the FIR-radio correlation and Lieu’s work on SZ is evidence that the universe is not transparent at microwave frequencies, which would collapse the whole proof. Second, a fractal universe has no determinate density, since density depends on the scale on which it is measured. Any universe with fractal dimension of 1 or less will have NO radius within which there is a Schwarzschild mass and thus no closed surface. Finally of course even Big Bang cosmologists do not accept today the non-zero cosmological constant .
I am specifcially talking about whether the sentence in the the plasma cosmology article accurately describes what H&E did, not about what is "true". No personally I don't think anything of the cosmological constant and plasam theory predicts a fractal dimaneison of 2 up to scales of several Gpc. Beyond that, there is not much evidence one way or the other. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So much for proof number 1. Moving on to their second proof, H&E attempt to prove that there is enough matter for a closed surface by the blackbody spectrum of the CBR. Again they assume a zero cosmological constant. More important, they assume that the scattering mechanism is Thompson scattering. But this is true only in unmagnetized plasma. If for example, there are magnetized filaments with high magnetic fields, they can scatter radiation by inverse synchrotron absorption and subsequent synchrotron emission, making the scattering length orders of magnitude greater, or equivalently making the amount of matter needed to thermalize many orders of magnitude smaller. It is easy to prove, as I have done in my papers on the plasma theory of the CBR, that thermalization can be achieved within a radius, and with a mass of matter, that is far less than a Schwarzschild mass within that radius. So the second proof as well does not rest only on GR, but also on the assumption that the CBR is scattered only by Thompson scattering and, again that there is no cosmological constant.
No, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938. For dense, highly magnetized filaments the cross section for synchrotron absoprtion can be vastly higher than Thompson scattering. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The final argument H&E use is based on the earlier proofs, so of course includes their assumptions as well. Here H&E explicitly assume an FRW, expanding universe metric and then argue that if that expansion is traced back far enough in time, you reach a point where the microwave background energy density along would form Schwarzschild masses. But this assumes expansion, it does not seek to prove it.
So to summarize, the Hawking and Ellis proofs do NOT show that the expansion is a generic consequence of GR, but instead is a consequence of GR plus the additional assumptions that the present-day universe is essentially transparent to CBR radiation, that such radiation is scattered only by Thompson scattering, that the distribution of mass is homogenous (definite average density, non-fractal) and that there is no cosmological constant. End of lecture.
Can all agree to delete the offending sentence now? Elerner 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Read it again, Joke. "from the fact that it remains isotropic travelling over such a long distance, we can conclude that on a large scale the metric of the universe is close to one of the the Robertson-Walker metrics" and in the next paragraph "since the radiation is freely propoagating..". Short-scale scattering explains the isotropy but is assumed not to occur. Also, what about all those other assumptions, too? Elerner 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The second argument assumes zero cosmological constant and only Thompson scattering. Still not a direct consequence, generic or otherwise of GR. Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The only reasons the sentence was in the article is because it argued that GR implied expansion, and therefore, by implication, the surface brightness data would contradict GR. But I have shown that this is not at all the case. The idea that you can derive expansion from several other assumptions is just irrelevant to what we are discussing here, which is the obervational evidence , from surface brightness, against expansion.
The question of whether or not the Hubble relation is caused by expnasion is an observational one, not a theoretical one. If it is caused by expansion, the (z+1)^3 sclaing has to work. If it does not work, then the Hubble redshifts are not caused by expansion.
So I'm deleting the whole mess as irrelevent to the article. You should put it in the article on Big Bang. Elerner 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Your response does not address the issues. The surface brightness data is not the "only reason" the sentences are in the article. Two points are made in the section:
No, it does not. The reference you cited, H&E clearly does not prove this, without additional assumptions, as I have pointed out at length. Elerner 16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In a fractal universe the average density of matter is zero, which makes the time scale of expansion or contraction infinite--for a fractal dimension of 1 or less. By the way, you are adding your own additional assumptions, like zero vorticity. Anyway, a zero rate of expansion or contraction is the same as a static universe. Also, even for a fractal universe of dimension 2, with nR=10^19 particles/cm^2, the expansion or contraction time would be of the order of 2x10^14 years and would be unobservably long. So again, you are wrong that GR alone implies anything, You need additional assumptions like homogeniety and no rotation.
You seem to find it hard to let go of the idea that you can "prove" mathematically that the universe is expanding. You can't. Give it up. While you're at it, why don't you admit who you are? Afraid to be caught arguing with a heretic? Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to argue numbers, you have to check your orders of magnitude more carefully. The Local Group's radius is about 1.7 Mpc, not 100 kpc. See, for example, http://www.seds.org/messier/more/local.html.This makes your calculation off by a factor of 17 ^3 or more than three orders of magnitude Elerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
H&E don't prove this at all. As I've said above, their argument is based on only one kind of scattering. Elerner
It is not original research--it's in my published papers. And it is not "my opinion". Read the paper--check the plasma physics. You don't seem to be able to follow very elementary plasma physics, yet the math involved in synchrotron absorption (a physically different proces than Thompson scattering) is a lot simpler than GR. It is also based on a theory that is far better confirmed than GR--electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations. If you can't find flaws in my derivations, then you should not keep reverting the article. Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you must check your arithmetic more carefully. Eq. 2.18a of the reference you cited shows that the ratio of synchrotron to Thompson cross section for radiation near the cyclotron frequency is 8.2x10^15/B, where B is the magnetic field in gauss. Even for the densest filaments cited in my paper, with B=2.5x10^5 gauss the ratio is 3.3x10^10, which is a long way off from your figure of 200. Anyway, I will think about a way to revise this so as to end the dispute. I suspect the whole thing should be moved to a separate section. Elerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
These are important. I agree that observations are paramount – I've never said they weren't – but if your theory is incompatible with GR which has had powerful experimental verification, then it suggests that it incorrect, or at least incomplete. – Joke 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted some compromise language. I am not going to go into yet another book, after all of Joke's admitted errors. Hopefully we can end the matter here. Elerner 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No, GR does not say that the space in the solar system or the galaxy is contracting--i.e. that the metric is changing. GR in no way rules out local stable concentrations of matter, no more than Newtonian gravity does.Your wording clearly implies a change in the metric with time, and that is in no way a result of GR. Elerner 06:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have been forced to assume the position of intellectual combatant here at this time. I apologize to Eric and Art, as for the rest, disregard me all you want, but be warned, the truth will out eventually and you will pay dearly for your intellectual stance. The world is going to laugh at you, at least those who bother thinking about you.
I wonder what happened to the "FREE" part of Wikipedia. Who says nothing can be edited without SA's approval? I have been looking around various cosmological subjects, Seems that ScienceApologist is involved with all of them. Looking at the discussions,ScienceApologist frequently deletes the work of others. There are complaints on every page. I found the entry Intrinsic Redshift which included Arp's work, and of course discounts it, but says nothing about quantized redshift. Indeed, there is no entry for quantized redshift. What does quantized redshift have to do with Plasma cosmology? POV or not, Plasma cosmology is to a degree an alternative theory to the widely accepted big bang theory. The big bang theory is supported in part by Doppler redshift observatons. Redshift is directly observed but the Doppler interpretation is an assumption that even Hubble didn't believe in. Quantized redshift was found by W. Tifft some time ago, and it has since been verified several times. Quantized and Doppler do not go together in a description of redshift, the usual explanation is that Doppler redshift would reveal a smooth continuous movement while quantized redshift shows periodic movement. Unless, of course, the earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by galaxies spaced like an onion skin. The explanation for quantization is simply that the shift is intrinsic, hence intrinsic redshift. for example the CREIL effect. I added these references to the intrinsic redshift page but they were soon deleted by SA. And with no discussion that Joshua always demands of others. He has used the word "evil" I wonder if I can use that word too. There is much more at stake here than Wikipedia hobby time, the reputation and security of American science is on the line, especially in regard to cosmology. The reason is simple, if American science is wrong, how far will it take us? There are many who believe that money has become the reason and purpose of science. Funding is important to those who are trying to suport themselves and their families. But is science science when it is being used for money?
M.B. Bell1 and D. McDiarmid1.(2005) Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
M.B. Bell (2006) Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that they are Likely to be a Lot Closer than their Redshifts Imply. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242
Tifft W.G.. (2003) 1Redshift periodicities, The Galaxy-Quasar Connection. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 285, Number 2, 2003, pp. 429-449(21)
Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3 Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Numbers 1-2, 1996, pp. 143-157(15)
Oldershaw, Robert L. (1995) New Light on Redshift Periodicities; Quantization in the Properties of Quasars and Planets. APEIRON Vol. 2, Nr. 2,
It didn't take long before ScienceApologist deleted them. Isn't this vandalism? What right has he got to delete my entries? SA by his own admission is a big bang advocate, and the method he uses is to delete or confuse opposing viewpoints. I don't know where he comes from, but in America freedom of speech is a right granted in our constitution. We are free to state opposing views. For one party to delete opposing viewpoints is not legal. When Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view, it mean that both sides need to be presented. That is common sense in all endeavors. Nowhere but here is a neutral point of view obtained by eliminating the opposing view.
Amazing what a difference there is between the original papers/books, and the opinions of the followers. For example, the Black hole is actually a conjecture based on the fact that they do not have any other explanation for how matter/energy is moving OUT. If one finds and reads the original papers, this is made plain by the author. But somehow, as the message is carried from reader to reader, the assumption becomes hypothesis becomes fact becomes basis for new hypothesis becomes fact. In the end we read in the morning newspaper that they find black holes by observing tremendous outflows. And when they find tremendous outflows, they thus have found a black hole. Tommy Mandel 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you're learning to avoid the worst of my criticism, but even here I think you really know the difference between the First Amendment and Wikipedia policy, for instance - you're free to talk in your house, but you aren't free to use someone else's megaphone without answering to their rules. Things like that make ScienceApologist look more credible when he claims that Eric Lerner and Ian Tresman are like you but better at hiding it. Art LaPella 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the book, pg 79: "...there is no such thing as tresearch without counterinstances. For what is it that differentiates normal science from science is a crisis state? Not, surely, that the former confronts no counterinstances." Tommy Mandel 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
but there is undoubtedly something interesting going on. These slides from a presentation of Meyer's seems quite interesting, starting with a so-far-unexplained 12 hour periodic abberation in time data from GPS satellites, and the Pioneer acceleration. He contends they point to a SR modification involving, interestingly enough, redshift. It's just a hypothesis, but a very interesting one. Jon 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I just clarify that plasma is not an electrically conducting gas. Gases characteristically do not conduct electricity. Plasmas have characteristics which totally differentiate themselves from gases. That's not to say that a plasma can not be treated, sometimes, as an ideal gas. But then gases and liquids can sometimes be treated as fluids, but we still differentiate gases from liquids. -- Iantresman 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like Lerner's definition of plasma, which I reverted. Most sources I've seen define plasma as an electrically conducting gas or at least defines it in terms of gas (say, as an ionized gas). I don't see a problem with this, but if you want to remove the reference to gas, it is important to mention its gaslike properties. Alfvén is here making a distinction between ionized gas and plasma which we don't clearly make in the article. – Joke 16:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have improved the language of the first paragraph. Tommy Mandel 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved sentence about no beginning from definition paragraph to paragraph about differences Tommy Mandel 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Improved sentence structure of first sentence in third paragraph Tommy Mandel 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Added the notable feature of plasma spiraling to third paragraph. Has this been discussed in the article later on? I'm sure it has, right? Tommy Mandel 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I took out the sentence referring to the big bang and gravity in the third paragraph. Oddly enough, my delete key doesn't work and I tried to to do a control C to copy the sentence and place it in a mor3e appropriate place but that doesn't work either, So it will have to be rewritten and placed in the right place. I hope that everyone is satisfied with the first three paragraphs as they are now. I like them, however, I will be questioning the phrase "electrically conductive" later on. Not that plasma is not electrically conductive, but the word "electrically" means to me anyhow electricity, which as we all know plasma is not, being composed of both ions and electrons. I know what is meant by electrically conductive, but in the strict sense electrically conductive plasma is at least misleading. In the sense that plasma is not a conductor per se. Plasma is the conducting itself, and the point of plasma is that it doesn't require a "conductor." in order to flow. The problem may be that we don't have a word for "pasma conducts plasma" hat says what "wire conducts electricity" My keyboard is dying. Tommy Mandel 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is how I edited these paragraphs. I spent an entire evening on this and did it without trying to ruin the work of others. In the middle of this somehow my edits disappeared dn't know why but I finally got it back the way I did it. This makes sense to me. I think that Eric wants to correct some of this, but I would like to have my say before it gets reverted back to the beginning. Please/
Thanks TM
Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model which incorporates the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmologists have proposed explanations for the evolution of the universe; from galaxy formation, to the cosmic microwave background, to large scale structure. Plasma is scalable, and electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas are used to study astrophysical plasma. Plasma cosmology is considered to be a non-standard cosmology. [1]
Plasma are those charged particles that are electrically-conductive and responds collectively to electromagnetic forces. It typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds or charged ion beams, but may also include dust and grains (called dusty plasmas) [2] They are typically formed by heating and ionizing a gas, stripping electrons away from atoms, thereby enabling the positive and negative charges to move freely. This movement typically takes on a spiraling structure. Plasma makes up the stars, the interstellar medium, and intergalactic medium. Astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are important in stars, galactic discs, quasars and active galactic nuclei.
Tommy Mandel 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we not link to the Plasma (physics) page for the actual definition? We don't need to repeat it here in detail, surely? Jon 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Why was "spiraling" taken out? Tommy Mandel 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I found this sentence today -- "Plasma cosmology often interprets astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. " very intriguing. I know I didn't write it because I have been struggling with trying to say it right. Whatever, it is a good example of how simple language can be very profound. Although I would argue the "often" part...I would like to add here that scaling means Plasma is intrinsically testable Tommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I replaced "collection" with the more state of the art "integrative-system." It bears discussion. A "collection" is much like a pile of sand, and does not do anything more then be collected together. A system differs in that the elements are interconnected and interrelated and in this "together" way can give rise to new emergent properties. These new properties usually cannot be found in the parts by themselves. Or even the collection of the parts. So just like there are properties of the atom which are quite different from the properties of the constituent protons and electrons, there are properties of plasma that are quite different from these protons and electrons. Tommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves..." Tommy Mandel 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
In assumption one, the term "equal" is a quantity, but it is not verfied in the ref: The ref. states clearly that in some cases magnetic fields are dominant (when matter is ionized) and when atoms are neutral, gravity dominates. Also, to say "on all scales" results in an error, as gravity is not equal to emf on atomic scales, if I remember right there is a difference of something like 10^43
Assumption two. text copied from above
Tom Van Flandern views cosmology as "eternal" like Schroedinger with his view of NOW, "having no beginning and no end," How? Someone, lost the reference, said that GR requires a singularity, but, the person wrote, GR does not stipulate how large the singularity has to be nor does it limit the number of singularities, In fact one of the 21 versions of Inflation theory has mini-singularities all over the place. Does this mean that GR would be satisfied if a singularity occured during the development of each galaxy? Maybe? So, where does the matter come from? Plasma. Seems that some physicists believe that there is a hidden dimension of space, a fifth dimension, what rienmann and Maxwell called the fourth dimension. I call it the INSIDE of empty space. How does maxwell do that? I wish I knew, but so far I have been led to the displacement currents. What are they? Maxwell's equations are not the original equations he formulated, instead they are simplifications created by Heaviside. What he simplified out was the quaternions, which, I think, explained how EMF persists in space. So, plasma is connected to a dimension inside space, which always existed, and which is the source of the energy within a galaxy/star.Therefore matter is streaming OUTWARD from any galaxy, exactly as observed. No need for fantastic creations from nothing ending in nothing. Tommysun 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the second assumption is not as important as the first, but I guess it's included to differentiate itself from Big Bang cosmology. You could have a version of plasma cosmology which has a finite age, if you are prepared to accept certain phenomenon in plasma cosmology, and certain phenomenon from Big Bang cosmology. No-one has ownership of plasma cosmology, nor Big Bang cosmology--Iantresman 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Because "effect" infers "cause", effect as a beginning of the Universe cannot be assumed without cause. Without cause, there can be no beginning. If beginning has a cause, then it is not the beginning. (I wonder how much of this problem is caused by having to use words to describe it?) Tommy Mandel 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology assumes that effect infers cause, and does not assume that effect occurs without cause.
Tommy Mandel 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a distinction has to be made here between Universe and matter. We can't say that matter is the Universe, because at one time, according to the prevailing theory, Universe existed but matter did not. So Universe becomes a huge abstraction (Whole) that we can never touch, so to speak. Matter, however, begs the question of where does it come from? If Plasma cosmology denies a beginning time, it will still have to account for the creation of matter. And it will have to do it now.
Can Plasma create matter? I don't know. I do know that there are a lot of basement inventors trying to get energy from the Aether. And it does seem like they are not entirely unsuccessful. What they do seem to be able to do is create a tiny quantity of above unity energies. But if that is so, then a star would also create a relatively tiny quantity of above unity energy too. But effect means cause, so where is this energy coming from? It cannot be coming from conventional sources, science would have found it long ago.
Hal Puthoff in 1987 showed how the ground state of the hydrogen atom derives energy from the ZPE. Recall that the atom is moving and the effect of moving requires something that is moving it. The ZPE is the Aether with a different name. So all those atoms in a star are deriving balancing energies from the ZPE. who is to say that sme sort of simple mechanical mechanism, say, isn't responsible for the creation of extra energy? If that is so, and the observations at the very least point to that, then Plasma cosmology has no need for a beginning that occured in the past which doesn't exist anymore. Now is all that is happening, and now always what was happening. Now does not have a beginning, or an end, See Schroedinger. That is how the domain of Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning.
Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning without a cause.
ASSUMPTION THREESince every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.
Is this right? Doesn't "evolving" mean evolving from what? If so we are at the beginning again. What does "evolve" really mean? It comes from Darwin, and he meant it to mean from simple to complex. That much is obvious, How this happens is not so obvious. Accidently? Self organization? Does plasma cosmology assume the Universe evolves? What do we mean when we say Universe in this context? If we mean that the parts of the Universe are evolving are we also meaning the Univertse as a whole is evolving?
At any rate, assumptions are taken as true without proof, so we don't need to justify the assumption. However, Plasma cosmology does not assume evolution, it describes it. Tommy Mandel 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Working my way into the article, I added Hubble's thoughts on standard interpretations of his law, and also added Tifft's quantized redshift. Interesting that these were left out, they are key evidence. Then I got to this
I don't understand your reasoning, one of the major assumptions of the standard theory is that redshift is Doppler induced. This leads to the conjecture of expansion. A quantized redshift is not consistent with a Doppler interpretation which predicts a random distribution, as well as expansion, which would blur the spectral lines. Without expansion there is no need to go back in time for the beginning. And this is one of PC's assumptions - there was no big bang moment. Quantized redshift is observational evidence which supports our assumption. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?
I acknowledge and agree that commentary should be justified and backed up with proper citations. What you are asking is to essentially write a scientific paper, and to top it off, you want it in a couple sentences. OK.
In his paper titled REDSHIFT PERIODICITIES, THE GALAXY-QUASAR CONNECTION, W. G. Tifft discusses his observations of quantized redshift. He write:
"Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars."
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613
This was confirmed by M.B. Bell1 and S.P. Comeau1 as reported in their paper "Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is the Great Attractor a Myth?" They write in their abstract: "Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow." Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305112
And Napier W.M A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims
"...that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them." Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)
So what is producing the redshift?
"The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams. You can find papers including references in arxiv.org, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press)."
http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.pdf
A Major Cosmic Surprise: New Cosmic Model Predicts Enhanced Brightness of Galaxies, SN, Quasars and GRBs With z > 10 Robert V. Gentry∗ The Orion Foundation, P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912 (Dated: April 1, 2002)
Bahcall [1] has enthused “The Big Bang is bang on” because recent Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) measurements [2] at z = 2.34 match its prediction of 9.1 K. He laments, however, this means he and like-minded colleagues will now miss the excitement of searching for a new cosmic model. His lament is premature. This Letter explores the exciting prospect that the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI), a relatively new cosmic model [3], equally qualifies as being ‘bang on,’ first because it accounts for the 2.73 K CBR locally, plus the more recent measurements at z = 2.34 and z = 3.025 [4]. Secondly, because it provides a new explanation of the enhanced brightness of high-z supernovae [5], and the dipole velocity distribution of radiogalaxies [6]. Thirdly, because it makes brightness predictions for even higher redshift (z > 10) objects that strongly suggest they should be detectable. And fourthly because, in a report that has thus far received scant attention [7], I describe what may be a potentially exciting discovery of evidence showing GPS operation reveals the universe is governed relativistically by Einstein’s static solution of the field equations, with its fixed in-flight photon wavelength (λ) prediction, and not big bang’s Friedmann-Lemaitre (F-L) solution, with its hypothesized in-flight λ variation and cosmological redshifts. Unless this discovery is refuted, then: (i) It follows that cosmological redshifts – upon which all of big bang is hinged – are not genuine physical phenomena and, (ii) an alternative astrophysical framework of the cosmos must exist that incorporates the Einstein static solution with its fixed in-flight λ, along with radically different initial conditions. " Tommy Mandel 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK Joshua, now what? How can we perfect this presentation such that it will meet with your approval in all the relevant entries of Wikipedia? Would you like me to summarize all of them? Right now, their own words are doing a good job. Perhaps you would like more? The above are the original sources, I've got plenty of interpretations we could discuss.
Also, I presume that you are a man of integrity, so it goes without saying that you favor the correct theory and disfavor the incorrect theory. Am I correct? So then you must agree that, in principle, quantized redshift (an observation) is infered/implied/predicted by the correct theory, and is not infered/implied/predicted by the incorrect theory. Correct?
Let me try it this way.
Do you agree that this accurately reflects the literature? Now, let's go to the subsequent implications...
Certainly, Joshua, these conclusions which nullify the standard theory, and justify the non-standard theories, one of which is Plasma Cosmology, must be, in order to preserve neutrality, inserted in all the appropriate places. So let us continue with your criticisms... Tommy Mandel 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Plasma cosmology conforms to every observed phenomenon except one. It does not account for the Hubble redshift, the very phenomenon (and the only one) that led to the development of the Big Bang. Dr. Lerner gives several theories that attempt to explain the Hubble shift in terms of the plasma universe, but none are firmly rooted in observed fact, like plasma theory itself. Fortunately, it does not matter. In architectural terms, the Big Bang is an incorrect structure. A broad, complex theory rests on an extremely narrow foundation, in fact, just one brick (the Hubble shift). The plasma universe, meanwhile, rests on an extremely broad foundation of observation. It does not require the creation of any new, exotic building materials, just the reliable concrete and steel of ordinary physics. If the "Hubble brick" is not added for a while, the building will not collapse. On the other hand, a light gust of solar wind (made of plasma, naturally) has brought the Big Bang building crashing to the ground. "
From http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbang3.html
Is this better?
Tommy Mandel 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just happen to notice that you reverted everything I did. You broke the deal, Joshua, I was going to ignore intrinsic redshift, non-standard cosmology and the big bang itself if you would have only left this alone. I am not bound anymore to stay away from those other entries. Thanks for taking the chains off...
Tommy Mandel 04:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Tommy Mandel 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The future: Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter ΛCDM model of the big bang. However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that research into alternative cosmologies be funded.[41]
Obviously this needs to be rewritten but rather than do it then talk about it I'm going to do it here first.
Plasma is a fact. Plasma Cosmology as an observational and theoretical science is widely unknown. The Hubble Telescope has brought us fantastic views of what plasma looks like. It's effects on star formation, galaxy structure and large scale structures are only beginning to be appreciated. Plasma cosmology is widely unknown to most conventional cosmologists because of the lack of their expertise in electrical phenomenon, the lack of support from of those deeply involved with and committed to the standard theory. and the lack of research funding made available for research outside the academic mainstream. The signers of the Open Letter to the Scientific Community" conclude: "Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."
Tommy Mandel 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
(Our edits crossed Art, maybe i fixed it, look and see)
Tommy Mandel 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I found this ESA research into GR gravity fascinating, although it is only perhaps of peripheral relevance to this article; I figured most of you here would be interested in it. Jon 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled."
Are they saying that gravity and magnetics have something in common? Because if they are, then gravity may be an EMF of some sort...
Tommy Mandel 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has taken some interesting turns. Im glad to see it has continued to shape up in the face of constant criticism and sabatoge by BB proponents. Well done to those who continue to strive for the article! While there is still a lot of misinformation here, it is better than it was before. This is Ionized btw, one of the original plasma cosmologists who helped defend this page. Keep up the good work people! edit: ah well now I see why, thanks to Mr. Lerner and others. awesome