Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:51, 15 November 2005

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives: Beginning to September 2005

Removed nonsequitor

This statement has been creepting back in: "over 99% of the Universe is thought to consist of plasma by particle count, volume and baryonic mass."

There is a problem with the statement and that is namely that it gives no information about Plasma cosmology, but it does say something about astrophysical plasmas. Since there is no discussion of the difference between standard understanding of plasmas and this nonstandard idea, it is inappropriate to include this fact in the introduction where a lot of opinions and unsubstantiated claims are made that are, for the most part, nonstandard. Joshuaschroeder 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Are you joking, "That over 99% of the Universe is plasma", gives no relevant information about plasma cosmology? Ironic that it was as plasma cosmologist (Alfvén) that brought this to the attention of astronomy. Further ironic that many astronomical texts use "gas" when they mean "plasma", or "hydrogen" when they mean electrons and protons. And 99% plasma is not a more accurate description?

• ".. a lot of opinions and unsubstantiated claims are made .." This is a page on the stance of plasma cosmology. If a plasma cosmologist believes that the moon is made of green cheese, then that is a FACT, that is what plasma cosmologists believe, and there is no need to explain to the reader that maybe this is not true. If you look at the page on pseudoscience and the "Fields often associated with pseudoscience", you will notice that the subject pages themselves generally described themselves without qualification; ie. they do not start "Chiromancy is a pseudoscience, with little scientific evidence...". Indeed, the analysis and criticism appear at the bottom of the page. Wikiepdia does not take a scientific point of view, it takes a neutral point of view.

--Iantresman 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

M87 Caption

• Joshua, this is a page about Plasma Cosmology, not about black holes. The comment has no place here. That this is a plasma cosmology explanation is already given. The image is illustrating an article on plasma cosmology.

It is important to distinguish between the explanation made by standard astrophysics and that made by plasma cosmology. It is inappropriate to simply explain the jets in terms of plasma cosmology without offering the model that most people who study these objects use. It gives the reader the false impression that there is no standard explanation for the phenomenon. Joshuaschroeder 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I gave two specific references to detail models and corroborating descriptions. Why did you remove them? What part of the papers did you find lacking? --Iantresman 13:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This was unintentional. The one paper is about galactic filaments which is different from radio jets. The other paper is on the subject though and is kept. However, the paper is not detailed and provides only a cursory discussion of ideas -- by no means a well developed model. This needs to be pointed out. Joshuaschroeder 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• What do you mean "not detailed"? It's a 20-page paper that I have in front of me. Which section(s) is/are not detailed enough, and why? --Iantresman 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not detailed in the sense that it isn't predictive of particular jet characteristics but rather just outlines a general formulation for jets. Compare this to the detailed analysis of jets contained in this classic Martin Rees paper: . There are no theoretical predictions nor matches to observations, instead there are handwaving arguments and vague gestures about comparing observations and theory, for example.

• Peratt gives a specific example in Fig. 19 and 20 (p.655). What's wrong with these examples? --Iantresman 19:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

They aren't explanatory but simply descriptive. Compare it to the Rees paper where the actual measurements of the jets are shown to match the theoretical functions of them. We're talking about scientific utility here and Peratt's stuff is not useful in an explanatory sense. It makes no predictions, it contains no element of falsifiability. It is purely comparative. This is why it is correctly said to lack detail. Joshuaschroeder 20:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What! Do we have the same paper? What caption do you have Fig 20? --Iantresman 21:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The same caption that you have on Fig 20. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Joshuaschroeder 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by your comment on Perratt's paper that I referenced in the M87 caption. Astonished actually. I wanted to make sure that we are both looking at the same paper by Peratt. So we can check, what text do you have for Fig.20? --Iantresman 16:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Check for yourself: , This conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. Joshuaschroeder 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Requests for comment

We have two versions of the caption for the M87 image at the top of the article, pretty much summarised by the section above. Is one better than the other, or is there a compromise?

1. This original caption: M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines -- so-called synchrotron radiation. Advocates of plasma cosmology suggest that such radiation is due to Birkeland currents; ]]

2. The version we see now, repeated here in case it changes: M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines -- so-called synchrotron radiation. Astrophysicists suggests that M87's dynamics are affected by a supermassive black hole, a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates. Some plasma cosmologists have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion that radiation like this may be due to Birkeland currents, . Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do.

Birkeland, i.e. force-free, currents do not in themselves results in any radiation. --Art Carlson 20:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, so how about saying something like: ".. that such radiation is due to double layers and z-pinches in Birkeland Currents? --Iantresman 21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Double layers and z-pinches do not in themselves results in any radiation, either. I suppose that conventional and plasma cosmologists agree that the radiation is electron synchrotron radiation. The difference would be on where the fast electrons come from. How much detail should there be in a figure caption? --Art Carlson 05:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosomologists certainly think that double layers and z-pinches are able to accelerate electrons that produce various forms of radiation, including synchrotron radiation, and this is a page about plasmas cosmology. I think the question is, do we qualify every plasma cosmologist statement with the mainstream view (Misplaced Pages is non-point of view, not, scientific), when (a) we don't qualify mainstreams article statements with alternative views (b) we don't even qualify statements in "Fields often associated with pseudoscience" articles. --Iantresman 09:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we don't feed the troll, and just keep reverting him until he goes away. Eventually he'll either give up or get a job and move on.

JoshuaSchroeder, kindly refrain from grandstanding, especially in something as inappropriate as an image caption. Jon 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you refering to as grandstanding? The caption is better as it stands as shown above. Joshuaschroeder 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your caption is appalling. As Jon suggests it is inappropriate as a picture caption, and I'd consider it inappropriate for an article.

• "a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates" is not neutral point of view.
  • "deride" falls into Misplaced Pages's policy of suggested words to avoid. Who are you to decide that others "deride", "do not accept", "criticise", or whatever?
  • The sentence implies that all "plasma cosmologist deride", which is an incredible over-generalisation
  • There is no place for this statement on this page. This is not a crtique of plasma cosmologists' acceptance of black holes
  • The reference is placed at the end of the statement impying that you have a source confirming that black holes is "a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates".

I this is an overgeneralization then we probably have to consider removing the picture all together as it is not informative about the subject of plasma cosmology in any case. Do all advocates of plasma cosmology believe this is a picture of z-pinch? Why should jets be features as an image if they are discussed in the article? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Picture captions, in general, are informative, and not a place for debate.

The informative capabilities of this picture are not clear to me, can you lay them out here? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Some plasma cosmologists have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion" is also not neutral, for exactly the same reasons.
  • It's over-general, dismissive, and your judgement

I think this is an accurate statement. Do you have any outline of a detail model for the jet? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do."

• Once again, this has no place in a picture caption, for the reasons above

That is a fact as illustrated by the very citation you make (see above comments). Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• You dismiss statements, based on peer-reviewed articles, on your opinion

No, these are statements that you make which are not reflected in the peer-review article. That's you opinion, not mine. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• That the original caption mentioned "plasma cosmology suggest that such radiation is due to Birkeland currents", does not require your additional qualification.

It most certainly does because "plasma cosmology" doesn't "suggest" anything. Its advocates do. Can you point to an advocate that has said that this particular jet is due to Birkeland currents and has provided a model for it? If not, maybe we should remove the image altogether. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• As far I can tell, no article on any alledge pseudoscientific subject has this level of qualification added to an article, let alone a picture caption.

You might check out creationist cosmologies... though there are no pictures in that article. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles do NOT take a scientific point of view.

Nor does it take an "Ian Tresman" point of view which is what this picture caption is apparently doing in its original form. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

--Iantresman 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my point of view, the article is about the point of view of plasma cosmologists in general. Peratt is an example of a plasma cosmologist, and if you read his paper, he talks about double layers accelerating electrons to form Birkeland current that produce a Bennett pinch and release synchrotron radiation. --Iantresman 17:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that paper however is not a citation to the claim made in the picture caption that plasma cosmology advocates say that M87's emission is due to this. Rather it says (in your words) that double layers accelerating electrons to form Birkeland current that produce a Bennett pinch and release synchrotron radiation. See the issue? Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic. A bit like criticising a black hole for being responsible for M87's jet, when strictly it's gravity. --Iantresman 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed my point: Perrat never makes the claim that M87's jets are due to what the caption claims they are. Therefore your claim that this is an accurate representation of plasma cosmology advocate POV is suspect. I believe that it is your POV, but inclusion of such in the article would be known as POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Peratt writes (p.640, para.2): "This paper investigates the filamentary electric-current aspect of cosmic plasma. Section II describes the basic model: interactions among galactic-dimensioned field-aligned current filaments. The Biot-Savart force law for filaments is discussed in Section IV, while synchrotron radiation from pinched filaments is given in Section V." (my emphasis).

And Section V contains the illustration of M87, as an example of a source of synchrotron radiation, from a Bennet pinch in a (field-aligned current) filament (another name for Birkeland currents), which contain double layers, that accelerate the electrons through the magnetic field, producing the radiation. --Iantresman 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in the paper does Peratt claim that M87 is "an example of a source of synchrotron radiation from a Bennet pinch in a (field-aligned current) filament". That's a very generous reading. Offer a quote that substantiates your claim. Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're joking, surely. Why do you think Peratt includes M87 in his paper, what do you think he is illustrating? I'll give you a clue from the Abstract:

"This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments. This model of the universe was inspired by the advent of three-dimensional fully electromagnetic particle simulations and their application to the study of laboratory z pinches. This study resulted in totally unexpected phenomena in the data post-processed from the simulation particle, field, and history dumps. In particular, when the simulation parameters were scaled to galactic dimensions, the interaction between pinched filaments led to synchrotron radiation whose emission properties were found to share the following characteristics with double radio galaxies and quasars: power magnitude, isophotal morphology, spectra, brightness along source, polarization, and jets."

And this from p.657:

".. the morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability of M87 are in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet jets."

In other words, the paper is about Birkeland currents (filaments) based on laboratory study of z-pinches (Bennett, or z-pinch), whose scaling to galactic sizes produces shows synchrotron radiation whose properties share characteristics with, amongst other objects, JETS (eg. M87's jet). And Peratt's conclusion is that M87's morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability are "in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet JETS" (a sheet jet is sheet beam, or JET).

That is not a "generous reading", that is SPECIFICALLY what the entire paper is about. --Iantresman 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What we have here is a case of plasma cosmologists saying that radiation that is observed from jets is similar to radiation observed in the lab. What Peratt doesn't say is that this is the mechanism but rather that there are similarities. This is why the caption reads the way it does and why your version is misleading. Joshuaschroeder 12:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see. Peratt writes that "This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments." And he finds that the observation evidence is consistent with laboratory evidence, and computer simulations. Now what inference do you think can be drawn from the results regarding a possible mechanism? --Iantresman 15:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he didn't find consistency, he made claims that the radiation looked similar. Jumping to conclusions that Perrat has conclusively demonstrated the mechanism for M87 or that he has even claimed this to be the mechanism for M87 is not only premature, it is POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So the (a) power magnitude, (b) isophotal morphology, (c) spectra, (d) brightness along source, (e) polarization, and (f) jets, are "in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs" of jets, and there is no inference to draw. And he has to "conclusively demonstrated the mechanism" to your satisfaction; and I presume that the "massive black holes" theory of jets "conclusively demonstrates"; I can't wait to see their laboratory results. --Iantresman 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian, you've wandered away from the text of the paper you are quoting. He does not demonstrate in that paper that any of the features a-f are comparable from M87 to his simulations. He claims that there are similarities only. Suddenly you are being hyper-derisive of supermassive black holes, which, I might point out, was claimed to not necessarily be the position of plasma cosmology advocates and I removed that statement from the caption. We need to represent things fairly. I think you want things represented to promote plasma cosmology. That's called POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that you have an uneven playing field. On the one hand, Peratt has shown similarities between observation and laboratory plasmas with several properties, and shown the maths that indicates that they scale to galactic proportions. And the inference is obvious. I am not aware of any papers published since that show Peratt to be incorrect. On the other hand, you have a supermassive black hole supporting your theory, of which there is NO SHED OF LABORTATORY EVIDENCE, and yet you're satisfied that is a workable mechanism.

We aren't here to entertain your fantasies about the applicability of so-called "laboratory evidence" to the question of whether your ideas of jets are correct or not. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you can point to someone who claims that M87's jet is described as due to what your version of the caption says it is due to. So far, you have just claimed that there is an "obvious inferenence" which is what the present caption outlines. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson predicted synchrotron radiation in 1950 based in PLASMA PHYSICS (peer reviewed), (independently predicted by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953), subsequently confirmed by Geoffrey R. Burbidge in 1956. Peratt provides a mechanism based on KNOWN laboratory PLASMA research, that further MATCH the observations over SEVERAL properties (peer reviewed), with no known peer reviewed evidence against, and no inference is drawn.

CAPITALIZING certain words does not do anything to make your POV more convincing. Nor have you addressed the fundamental issues I outlined above. Synchrotron radiation is not strictly related to plasma processes other than both being dependent in part of charge separation. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that Peratt is not implying the obvious inference, is frankly, ridiculous. "This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments." "the morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability of M87 are in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet jets". --Iantresman 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous by your POV standards, not by any citation you have provided. Repeating quotes of how Perrat has claimed that radiation is similar is how the caption presents the discussion. That's all I've been saying and so far all you've been saying is that you want to draw a greater conclusion from Perrat's work than he himself does. Similarity of radiation does not imply that Perrat is making a mechanistic claim. That is your doing, not his. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

JoshuaScroeder, I for one am fed up with your constant pedantic nit-picking and vandalism of this article. It is obvious to anyone able to think for themselves without dribbling what Peratt's paper is about. Do you see me/us picking large holes in the WMAP, CMB or Big Bang pages, tempting though it is? No. Why not? Because it is not a particularly polite, sensitive or civilised thing to do. Firstly, lacing this article (and others) with constant rebuffs and desrisory remarks makes the article read like a brawl at a Startrek convention and breaks the flow of the writing. One sentence in the introduction should be enough to warn people that this is an incomplete theory and is a minority science. Constantly underestimating the readers' intelligence by brow-beating them with this fact is childish at best.

The whole approach to plasma cosmology is laboratory- and observation-based, precisely because plasmas have many features that are scale-invariant, and therefore lab observations of plasmas can be applied to large-scale structure. This is in direct contrast to the approach of Big Bang apologists such as yourself, which seems to be about trying to "guess the mind of God" and shoe-horn the entire universe into a few mathematical formulae that "must be" how the universe works. If you are incapable of grasping this, that is not for the Misplaced Pages readership to have to put up with.

As with all science, just because a model can describe an observation, does not mean that the observation proves the model. In fact, in a related area, I challenge you, JoshuaSchroeder, to defend why the CMBR is proof, or at least a primary under-pinning, of the Big Bang model in particular.

Oh and another thing, if you insist on constantly vandalising this page, please at least get the grammar and spelling right. It makes it difficult to decide whether to correct you first before reverting  :-) Jon 07:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Jon, but frankly find them lacking any substantive criticism. "It is obvious to anyone able to think for themselves" seems a very glib thing to write to me. If you have anything in particular to point out beyond what you have laid out above, please do so.

I'm not aware of how much mathematics/physics/astronomy you have studied in your life, and neither can you be sure of how much I have in mine. However, I can say that in my opinoin the plasma cosmology as it is currently represented on this page is far better, more NPOV, and greatly improved from what it was represented as a few weeks ago. It is important to put forward the explanations of plasma cosmology as well as the problems with the model as the same thing is done with the Big Bang article, the non-standard cosmologies article, and other articles on these topics.

As for the rest of your criticisms, I hope you will indulge a non-response. Issues that you have with the Big Bang should be taken up in that article space, not here. Joshuaschroeder 08:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Content of the page

I do agree that there needs to be more content to the page. Part of the issue I've always had with plasma cosmology advocates is that they don't make very many claims other than to say things like the Navier-Stokes Equations are inappropriately used for modeling, that the filamentary structure of clusters and superclusters is due to plasma processes and that there is an anti-gravity component that allows for a steady-state universe of sorts in certain double layers (though this argument I have never followed). Does this sound about right to the advocates for the things that describe plasma cosmology? Joshuaschroeder 08:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, the problem I have always had with Big Bang advocates, as I wrote on this page to RoadRunner a year or so ago, is their total blanketing of any attempt to describe PC in any detailed way. Part of the reason for this is that describing plasma cosmology involves describing the (perceived) weaknesses and differences of interpretation of the standard model from which it develops. This has always terrified Big Bang folks and is always leapt on, derided and censored by them. However it is still necessary to cover these differences, but an article where every second sentence is something like "...this is obviously patent nonsense because XYZ" is awful to read. So if you can kindly let us "advocates" get on with it, instead of tearing it down all the bloody time, that would be great. Don't forget, progress is slow when folks are also working, dragging up kids, writing theses and whatever else as well, and sometimes don't have the patience or mental fortitude to enter pedantic nit-picking debates over image captions when the article has, as you have just pointed out, much greater and more important gaps elsewhere.

I am not going to stop being an editor as that is not how Misplaced Pages works. I am here to help describe the subject, but there is no reason that you can't have me as an editor too. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'm not sure why you feel that an introduction to PC can't start with the premise that 99% of the visible matter in the universe exists in the plasma state. One of the main tenets of PC is that plasma cannot be treated, and does not behave, as an overall-neutral gas. So ignoring large-scale electrical and magnetic fields on the assumption that they eventually cancel out is 1. wrong, 2. no longer required, given the available computing power (ie. none) at the time that assumption had to be made. I hope that illuminates one of your earlier objections. Jon 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly descriptive about this vis-a-vis plasma cosmology as anyone who studies astrophysics admits to the universe being mostly plasma. This seems off-topic. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But (1) people reading the article probably haven't read anything about astrophysics, and even fewer have anything about plasma physics (2) It does not matter if it is accepted that the Universe contains a lot of plasma, it is still a fundamental point of fact (3) Just because Big Bang proponents also accept that the Universe contains plasma does not mean that the facts are mutually exclusive. --Iantresman 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that we should try to describe plasma cosmology rather than worrying about whether it is important to note that most of the universe is plasma in the article. Joshuaschroeder 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. That nearly all of the visible universe is plasma is one of the starting points. Instead of being an ancilliary fact as it is in BB models, it is one of the central tenets of PC. Jon 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So you say, but what makes it ancilliary as opposed to a "starting point". One could easily say that reionization is fundamental to the Big Bang since it is what makes the universe transparent, but I'm not sure I understand your point -- especially in the context of the lack of information on why this is important provided in the article. I understand it Alfvén was fond of the matter-antimatter universe being the real culprit for the universe's dynamics (and since Baryon assymetry isn't even mentioned in the article, I wonder whether that is forgotten.) Anyway, please let me know specifically how it functions as a starting point. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree as well, but not under your editorial regime. You do not understand neutral point of view (NPOV) in the context of an encyclopedic entry. As you have pointed out yourself, even the entry on the Big Bang includes criticism, but where do we find it? In the first line? In the first paragraph? In the introductory perhaps? No, it is way down in section 5, and not a single qualification, rebuttle, reader-warning, or criticism of any sentence until then.

The difference being, of course, that the Big Bang is the mainstream theory while plasma cosmology is, at best, fringe science. Descriptions of ideas come contextualized, not based on the fancy and whims of their supporters. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean scientifically neutral thoughout. This is not an essay on the pros and cons of plasma cosmology. It is an inherently biased article from the point of view of plasma cosmology. If you go and look at nearly any pseudoscientific article, on Alchemy, Astrology, Atlantis, you will not find your kind of butchery and need to rebuff every statement. There is no need to add so much detail to a picture caption. Can you find any other picture caption on the whole of Misplaced Pages that finds it necessary to include rebuffs and alternative explanations?

If you think it bad, maybe you should ramp up the mediation process. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More than that, none of those articles are explicitly formulated as opposed to mainstream science as plasma cosmology is. Lerner and friends are extremely argumentative to that effect and every good turn deserves another. Since most of plasma cosmology isn't about just developing ideas about the universe but rather attacking other ideas about the universe, it is fair that we look at it through the appropriate filters. That's NPOV. Relegating the counterpoints to some subordinate part of the article doesn't cut it because plasma cosmology itself is a counterpoint. Better groups of pages to compare this to would be creation science or Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. I am all for sympathetic descriptions, but right now we have absolutely no description of plasma cosmology. We just have a polemic against the Big Bang and the response that the Big Bang offers that polemic. To move ahead, let's describe plasma cosmology -- not just what it takes umbrage with. Joshuaschroeder 13:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is preposterous trolling. I cannot trust your ability to write NPOV if you are lumping PC in with creationism and absurd conspiracy theories. You also seem unable to separate ideas from personalities. People, even (especially?) physicists, are often prickly or odd. So what? Does that invalidate their ideas? Einstein believed in God. So what? Jon 20:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You're all over the map here, accusing me of trolling, asking questions that I don't think have anything to do with reporting on plasma cosmology for the article. Please, we need to explain the subject rather than bicker. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology does not attack any other cosmology; counterpoints are not intrinsically attacking, any more than Republicanism attacks Liberal democracy, and to believe in God is intrinsically anti-science. Criticisms on the Big Bang are found on the Big Bang page. Indeed, the only hint at a criticism towards the Big Bang on the Plasma Cosmology page is in the introduction where it is written "The theory was first proposed and initially developed by plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén as an alternative to the two leading candidates in physical cosmology, the Big Bang". Not only is the statement false, but you wrote it! That you see Plasma Cosmology as an "attack" is very telling, and unfortunately the only analogy I can think of is Communism, where the mere existance of democracy, religion and free speech are seen as an attack on the leadership. --Iantresman 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the statement about Alfvén. That was rather User:Joke137. As far as I know, this is true, in fact. Do you have a citation that states that it isn't? That Lerner wrote a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" is undeniable. Plasma cosmology advocates, as a general rule, don't shy away from attacking the entire mainstream conception of cosmology. That you are somehow claiming they are neutral toward the subject is strange to me. Note the polemics leveled by User:Jonathanischoice above. Joshuaschroeder 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well what are you doing here editing the page, JoshuaScroeder? Attaching plasma cosmology. How are you different from anyone else with a point of view? Oh I forgot, you are, of course, right, and everyone else is wrong. I admire your attempts to keep Creationism and intelligent design on a leash, but do try to be a little more open minded. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am editting this page because right now it needs some attention. It's in better shape now, but it could be improved. If you'd like to help, please join the conversation. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Article History seems to show that you added the statement on 26th Oct, or at the very least, re-inserted it. Of course I can't find a reference to say that Alfvén did not set out not produce an alternative of the Big Bang, here the onus is on you to show that he did. There is certainly no mention of the Big Bang in Cosmical Electrodynamics (1963), although he did criticise the Big Bang later. Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened is a criticism of the Big Bang which mentions plasma cosmology, but that is not the same as Alfvén attribution. And I have no idea whether Jonathanischoice is a plasma cosmologist or whether he is just speaking for himself.

Just found this quote from Alfvén in Cosmic Plasma (1981): "Contrary to the very strong views of most cosmologists it seems highly appropriate to initiate a serious discussion about the validity of the big bang hypothesis. This is especially true in view of the fact that — as we have seen in the preceding chapters — in situ measurements of space plasmas have changed our views of cosmic physics, and that this change may include the approach to cosmology.

"Criticism of the big bang hypothesis should not be interpreted as an attempt to revive the continuous creation hypothesis. However, the advocates of this hypothesis (especially the Burbidge group) have presented several objections to the big bang hypothesis which deserve much more attention than they have received."--Iantresman 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a telling quote. I'm not attached one way or another to the point of why Alfvén developed the model, I "reinserted" the statement for no other reason than it is illustrative of the origins of the theory. As far as I know, it was done as a counter to both the steady-state and Big Bang cosmologies --> more in line with Einstein's original conception of an infinite universe. Do I have a cite for this? No. In fact, I don't even know when the term "plasma cosmology" was coined. I do know that Alfvén's original papers on the subject of cosmological implications of plasmas are much more mainstream and considered very uncontroversial compared to much of what now qualifies as plasma cosmology. I'll take the statement out as it isn't explanatory anyway. Joshuaschroeder 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on wanting to edit this article, why don't you familiarise yourself with the science first? You keep asking for citations, which means you obviously are not familiar with the research. Much of the interesting stuff (such as Alfven's original papers) is in IEEE transactions and other non-online journals, which means you might have to actually visit a library. There's also Peratt's reprints available at Inatresman's link below, which form a good starting point. Jon 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I resent the insinuation that I'm not famliarised with "the science". I have been active in the field and have given talks on plasma physics with respect to my research on reionization. Asking for citations is a normal way here on Misplaced Pages of working through the issues surrounding our discussions. I've read Peratt's papers, Alfvén's papers, and Lerner's horrendous excuse for a popular-level book, but I see many claims on this page that I think are unsubstantiated. I'm willing to entertain other points of view, but I think some points of view are not representative of the plasma cosmology "community" (if such a thing can be said to exist). Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just noticed that on 26th Oct, you added the Pseudoscience category tag to the this article; I'm sure that Alfvén, who helped develop plasma cosmology (peer reviewed), and won Nobel Prize for developing magnetohydrodynamics will be delighted with your opinion of his work.

--Iantresman 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I Removed it. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think conjuring up the ghosts of dead scientists is likely to aid in editing the article. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What a bizarre thing to say. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding plasma processes in the Universe, ask yourself whether the interplanetary medium is described gravitationally, or magnetohydrodynamically? No one is saying that gravity is insignificant, but neither are plasma dynamics. I recommend that you read some more of Peratt's papers which are amply supported by laboratory evidence and lots of maths. --Iantresman 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether it may just be possible that other astrophysicists have considered plasma processes in the Universe. That's the major point: there is a distinguishing feature between plasma cosmology and normal astrophysics that is at the level of applicability of phenomena that may or may not be applicable (or even real). Simply claiming that MHD is important and walking away is a non-starter. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. in PC plasma processes created the large scale filamentary structure of the universe, without the need for dark matter, superstrings or any other imaginary mechanism. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"superstrings"? Are you trying to refer to string theory which has nothing to do with large scale structure? Or are you talking about something else? I added the section on dark matter in the article and would love to see how plasma cosmology deals with all the evidence, but so far I've just seen things on velocities and nothing on lensing, correlation functions, etc. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Source please

Could someone source this ... "Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do." Otherwise this is an opinion and borders on "original research". JDR

Maybe |this guy can help. Jon 01:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure: consider the fact that there only abstract that uses the term "plasma cosmology" in service is an article by Perrat in Sky and Telescope Magazine. There hasn't been anything published with regard to explaining or offering a theoretical infrastructure for plasma cosmology jets. Plasma cosmology does not represent a research program in cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to do orignal research (eg., consider this) ... get a citation ....

Just because something isn't published in a journal does not mean there isn't a theoretical infrastructure ... Sincerely, JDR

You won't find many "plasma cosmology" articles by searching for "plasma cosmology", just as many articles on the Big Bang are not tagged "Big Bang Cosmology" or even "Standard Cosmology". Example of sources that mention jets, from a plasma cosmology point of view, and which arguable demonstrate that this is more than an ad hoc suggestion, include:

• Cosmic Plasma (1981) Hannes Alfvén
• Current-carrying beams in astrophysics - Models for double radio sources and jets (Benford, G., 1978)
• Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets (Anthony Peratt, 1986)
• Macroscopic stability of charged particle streams (Meierovich, B. E., 1986)
• What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small (Bostick, W. H., 1986)
• Acceleration in the plasma focus and in astrophysics (Browne, P. F., 1988)
• The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe (Anthony Peratt, 1988)
• A new hypothesis of cosmic ray generation in plasma pinches (Trubnikov, Boris A., 1992)

--Iantresman 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Proving a negative cannot be done -- it's not original research, it's a fact that there are no journal articles. Actually you find a lot of abstracts that include that term "Big Bang cosmology" -- roughly 1889. That's well more than the 5 that show up for Plasma cosmology. All of Ian's referenced sites do not claim to have theoretical or explanatory infrastructure for jets. Therefore the claim is well cited. Joshuaschroeder 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that, that there are no journal articles on jets and plasma cosmology, when the references I gave include sections on just that. Your agenda is clear. Claim there is no research, then claim it is not peer reviewed, then claim it doesn't include enough detail, then claim it is insignificant, then deny it all together.

You did exactly the same on my additions to redshift where you denied that the Wolf Effect could produce a redshift that is identical to the Doppler redshift. I found three peer-reviewed references that said that it could. I further emailed each author who CONFIRMED the same. And yet you still claimed that the Wolf Effect could not not, contrary to at least three specialists in their field. --Iantresman 08:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sections" on jets in the above papers includes a section in Perrat's papers and Bostick's papers. However, while both papers are comparative in their descriptions of laboratory processes and jets, neither presents a coherent theory or mechanism for jets that is predictive like the mainstream model (see above discussion for more on mainstream models). This isn't to criticize the plasma work done -- indeed there are plasma processes at work in jets -- only the predictive and theoretical work for only plasma processes being the mechanism isn't available in any of these papers. Keep redshifts on the redshifts page, unless you have a problem with the section here. We know that these effects you name are frequency dependent -- by the very admission of the process mechanisms. Joshuaschroeder 09:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just as I said. You claim there is no research, then claim it is not peer reviewed, then claim it doesn't include enough detail, then claim it is insignificant, then deny it all together. Now you claim that it is not a "coherent theory" (OPINION), does not present a mechanism (UTTERLY FALSE), and isn't "predictive" (FALSE). Just to substantiate, the mechanism is based on standard plasma physics as tested, observed and confirmed in the laboratory. Regarding predictive nature of plasma cosmology, I will point out that:

• Birkeland PREDICTED plasma is space, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.

Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.

This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.

No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.

• Birkeland PREDICTED field-aligned currents, which Alfvén promoted, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.

Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.

This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.

No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.

• Alfvén PREDICTED synchrotron radiation in space, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.

Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.

This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.

No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.

• Alfvén PREDICTED large scale filamentary structure of the universe, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.

Incorrect. The filamentary structure has never been shown to be similar to plasma filaments. This is the main contention of plasma cosmology and is where the mainstream cosmology and plasma cosmology diverge.

No, your contention that the filamentary structure is not similar to plasma filaments is bizarre. What you meant is that the "mainstream community" denies that it is similar to plasma filaments.

You haven't shown any evidence that the similarity has been measured in anything more than placing two pictures side by side.

• Alfvén PREDICTED magnetohydrodynamic waves, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.

Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.

This objection is irrelevant. Alfven formulated magnetohydrodynamics and predicted MHD waves. Of course this is plasma cosmology. Is this a wind-up?

MHD != plasma cosmology.

• Alfvén PREDICTED critical ionization velocity, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.

Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.

This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.

No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.

• Alfvén PREDICTED jet streams, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.

Jet streams? As described where and in what fashion?

And as for plasma cosmology failing to make further predictions, I note the following from plasma cosmology papers appearing in the 1986 IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (peer reviewed):

• "The model predicts..."; ".. we derive from this hypothesis a prediction of the.. "; "The prediction that.. "; "Our model provides two clear-cut and testable predictions.. "; "In the week after the initial submission of the present paper, these predictions were confirmed.." in Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Scale Invariants, and the Fundamental Constants, by Lerner
• "... predict that a plasma pinch (a plasma focus) can perhaps achieve..."; "Figs. 13-15 predict that... " in What Laboratory-Produced Plasma Structures Can Contribute to the Understanding of Cosmic Structures Both Large and Small, by Bostik
• "The ability of the model based on an inhomogeneous field of form Bo(r) oc llr to predict both the P -1 spectra... "; "Thus two types of behavior are predicted..."; "These predictions are what is observed"; in Magnetic Vortex Tubes in Astrophysics, by Browne
• "A direct comparison of the simulation predictions is possible..."; in Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The of Systems of Galaxies, Peratt
• "Application .. leads to the prediction of ..." in Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, Alfvén
• "... can be used to predict... " in "General Bohm and Langmuir Conditions for a Strong Double Layer in Space Plasmas", Williams
• "It may be easy to test this prediction..." in "Plasma Processes Driven by Current Sheets and Their Relevance to the Auroral Plasma, Singh
• "... plasma properties with inductively driven ion flows corresponding to the quantum "supercurrents" are predicted..., " in "Hall Magnetohydrodynamics and Its Applications to Laboratory and Cosmic Plasma", Witalis
• "... the theory based on ion beam instabilities predicts... "; "... This prediction should provide an experimental test of the theory." "A Review of Broad-Band Electrostatic Waves in the Magnetotail", Grabbe

Quoting papers where they use the word "prediction" doesn't say anything about the predictability of points specific to plasma cosmology that are rejected by mainstream science. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you still claim it is a pseudoscience, and Alfvén a pseudoscientist? --Iantresman 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Alfvén was a mainstream scientists who had some good ideas and some bad ideas, just like all mainstream scientists who do pioneering work. I haven't ever claimed that Alfvén was a pseudoscientist. However, it isn't true that one must accept all his conclusions about the applicability of plasma processes. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You have also lost sight of the point that the caption is making. There is no model that has been proposed by plasma cosmology advocates that explains or outlines a theory for the M87 jets. There have been comparisons made, but that is different. Until you understand the basic difference between comparison and explanatory theory, there is no reason to continue this discussion. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not that easy. You meant there is no reason for you to continue this discussion. The correct spelling is irrelevant. Jon 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

On explanatory theory, having an explanation for something does not necessarily mean you have the truth, if one's observations contradict it. For example, there is (by definition) no observational evidence for dark matter, only an inference that it must be there rather than admit the density is out by 2 orders of magnitude. This is where PC and the "mainstream community" really diverge. Anomolous galaxy rotation curves and supercluster motions can be explained using HMHD (cf. Peratt) without having to resort to dark matter when (in PC) you assume that visible matter is plasma and therefore moves primarily under the influence of magnetic and electric fields on large scales. Peratt's simulation work is important because the motions can be accounted for without having to invent the "missing" matter and energy. It simply isn't missing. Jon 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that explanatory != truth. Your comments about dark matter are provacative and highly debatable POV ("no observational evidence"), but they failed the major point that I made which is that the evidence isn't just from velocity dispersions and rotation curves. Joshuaschroeder 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article is protected

Page is protected as requested. Editors involved will eventually have to come to terms with the fact that there are conflicting POVs at play and that unless you stick to describing the controversy rather than asserting a POV as fact, the editwarring will continue. Civility, no personal attacks and patience are needed to be able to achieve NPOV in these cases. Drop me a line when you thing you are ready to resume editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 07:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

So can we get some advice on point of views? We clearly have a disagreement about whose point of view is correct, and which neutral point of view is more consistent with Misplaced Pages? --Iantresman 08:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather that trying to portray a specific POV in the aritcle. you can consider describing all POVs instead. From WP:NPOV:

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 10:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is controversy that should be reported. I am more than willing to work with others who disagree with mainstream science. However, as it currently stood, no one was offering any ideas beyond the caption I made which is NPOV compared to the caption that is currently avaiable. I look forward to hearing from other editors. Joshuaschroeder 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on the subject of the article? For example, an article on 'astronomical jets' may well mention several different theories (points of view). But an article about the Plasma Cosmology theory of astronomical jets is mainly concerned with explaining the Plasma Cosmology point of view. To balance the article, it is necessary to mention that there are other theories, but surely not to discuss the matter in a picture caption and the article introduction?

You haven't demonstrated that "plasma cosmology" has any "theory" of astronomical jets other than showing that they share similar shapes to things seen in labs. To that end, maybe the entire picture should be removed altogether. After all, jets aren't considered a part of mainstream cosmology, why are they a part of plasma cosmology? Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Another example, an article on 'medicine' would do exactly as you say, highting different points of view. But an article on 'homeopathy' has its own intrinsic point of view, which must have priority over other points of view, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, or whether there are more reputable sources. Once the article has summarised and explained the point of view of the subject of the article, THEN you would mention criticisms. And if I included a picture of a homeopathic remedy mentioning that homeopaths might prescribe it for colds, then I surely don't need to discss this in the picture caption. Indeed, looking at the article on homeopathy, there is no discussion or criticism on it until Section 5.

So I'm not saying that we don't mention all points of view, just that we don't do it in a picture caption or the article introduction? --Iantresman 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a good case to be made for removing the picture entirely. It isn't about cosmology but rather about jets. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As the article in itself doesn't seem to cover the question of these jets at all, the most simple solution would be, to drop the picture. --Pjacobi 15:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem adding information on the plasmas cosmology view of jets to the article. That M87 is relevant can be seen in the Abstract of C.E.R Bruce's article, The role of electrical discharges in astrophysical phenomena, which says "Some properties of electrical discharges are described, including rate of propagation, magnetic fields, the pinch effect, and plasma jets.

This isn't expressly plasma cosmology. We know that plasma is involved in astrophysical jets. That does not make the subject plasma cosmology. We've already gone through and removed the instances of non-plasma cosmology in this article. Why should we introduce other tangential arguments that are accepted by the mainstream?

These phenomena and objects are identified as being due to or characterized by electrical discharges: solar flares, the variation in long-period variables, the filamentary structure of the Crab Nebula, novae, radio galaxies, barred spirals, quasars, and the jet of M 87." (My emphasis). Electric discharges are plasma filaments.

Why is it that plasma cosmology advocates cannot seem to stick to the issue at hand? This is a review article of all plasma processes in disparate phenomena. It does not explain the position, if any exist, that plasma cosmology has about jets. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That jets are relevant to the article can be seen from the title Peratt's article "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets". (My emphasis).

That, I agree, is the only article that addresses the subject from a perspective of plasma cosmology. As the above discussions explain, however, the current caption does not do justice to Perrat's article's position. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A Web page on the Plasma Cosmology site, Thunderbolts, mentions "The jet of the active galaxy M87 is composed of hot plasma that is constricted to a filament thousands of light years long by the electromagnetic forces of the electric current flowing along its axis."

It seems quite relevant to have an image of a jet such as M87, with a decription that "M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by synchrotron radiation resulting from high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines. Some plasma cosmologists compare to the structure to a pinched plasma filament as seen in the laboratory."

--Iantresman 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of a bad resource, Ian -- perhaps more of an Electric universe (concept) issue rather than plasma cosmology.

I submit that there has been no case made for including information on jets in this article. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology includes anything to do with astrophysical plasmas, whether accepted by mainstream astronomy or not. Just because mainstream astronomy accepts some of the ideas introduced by plasma cosmologist Hannes Alfvén, that does not rule them out of this article. That the Universe is 99.9% plasma by volume, is one of the basic tenants of plasma cosmology which just happens to be accepted by mainstream astronomers too. Alfvén developed magnetohydrodynamics, and won the Nobel Prize for it; you can't rule it out of plasma cosmology because astronomers use it too. For an outline of plasma cosmology, I suggest you read Anthony Peratt's article called Plasma Cosmology (PDF) --Iantresman 21:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, plasma cosmology does not include anything to do with astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology is known as a non-standard cosmology. It is not an overarching research program. Furthermore, plasma cosmology doesn't just accept anything whether it is accepted or not, it only accepts things that the people who support plasma cosmology support. It isn't inclusivist because, for example, it rejects Velikovskian notions.

I'm glad you pointed out Perrat's article on the subject Ian, but you will notice nowhere does Peratt claim that jets are a part of cosmology, nor does he claim that solar prominences are a part of cosmology. Maybe this is the problem, there are people like you who are interpretting Plasma Cosmology as something more than simply a non-standard cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave you Peratt's article to show that the most basic plasma phenomenon are discussed. I've already given you a reference to another article by Peratt (a plasma cosmologist), whose title is "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets". (My emphasis). --Iantresman 23:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's break this down:

1. Just because someone discussed basic phenomena in a work about a subject doesn't mean that the basic phenomena are part of the subject. For example, basic physics are part and parcel to physical cosmology. That doesn't mean that basic physics are a part of basic cosmology. We can refer to basic physics in defining physical cosmology, but basic physics isn't part of physical cosmology. Similarly plasma physics is referred to in Perrat's discussion of plasma cosmology, but plasma physics isn't part of plasma cosmology. We can refer to plasma physics and mainstream astrophysical plasmas in the article, but these subjects are not part of the subject.
2. Just because Perrat wrote an aritcle on "Evolution of the plasma universe" and included information on some phenomena in the universe such as quasars, jets, and radio galaxies doesn't mean that those subjects are part of plasma cosmology any more than the phenomena of radio galaxies, quasars, and jets are part of mainstream physical cosmology. One can describe something in context or use a context as a justification, but this article is not indicative of a cosmological model.

Therefore, it is much more apparent to me that jets do not belong in this article. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And here is yet another quote, from an already-mentioned reference, to Winston Bostick's article that appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, (Dec. 1986) featuring articles by plasma cosmologists Hannes Alfvén, Anthony Peratt, Per Carlqvist, Eric Lerner, and other, titled "What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small" in which he writes: "the Birkeland aurora filaments, are expected to play a role in the formation of phenomena including galaxies, solar flares, comet tails and giant galactic jets." (my emphasis).

You understand, of course, that solar flares and comet tails have nothing to do with cosmology. There's little reason to think that jets do either. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Birkeland aurora filament" is another name for a Birkeland current. "are expected to play a role" means may cause, participate, influence, etc. "giant galactic jet" means jet, and an example of which is M87 (so says New Scientist). --Iantresman 23:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

New Scientist is hardly an authorative resource. Joshuaschroeder 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate scope

It seems natural to me that plasma cosmology only encompasses cosmological issues. There may be some discussion of where cosmology stops and astrophysics starts, and there may be some discussion of what elements should be included that are both plasma based and commonly accepted, but if the phrase "plasma cosmology" is to be used to refer to non-cosmology, then that needs to be made clear in the intro. It seems equally clear that jets are astrophysics and not cosmology. Do you see it any different, Ian? --Art Carlson 17:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you be surprised if I said yes? Plasma cosmology is to do with processes that form various aspects of the universe. One difference from standard cosmology, is that plasma cosmology does not necessarily include a "start" like the Big Bang. Consequently, processes that form galaxies, stars, and jets, and ALL astromical processes are part of plasma cosmology. Since plasma cosmologists suggest that black holes are not part of the make-up of jets, and they have mentioned certain plasma processes that they feel contribute towards the formation of jets, then I think it is very relevant. And just because mainstream science already accepts many aspects of plasma physics, does not rule it out of plasma cosmology. Alfvén developed MHD and used it as part of plasma cosmology. Perhaps Eric Lerner will put us straight. --Iantresman 21:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that the term "cosmology" in "plasma cosmology" has a meaning different from the standard usage, namely (from Physical cosmology) "the study of the large-scale structure of the universe". Can you say where you draw the line between plasma cosmology and plasma physics? If not at astrophysical jets, then at main sequence stars? Or the ionosphere? Or lightning? --Art Carlson 22:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That's my understanding. Because of the scaleability of plasmas, from the microscropic to the macroscopic, it's all relevant. But I could be wrong. Again, I'll wait for Eric Lerner to clarify. --Iantresman 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Gravity is also scaleable as it affects planetary systems as well as galaxy clusters. Does this mean that you would consider mainstream cosmology as involving Kepler's Laws in the Solar System? Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a question for mainstream cosmology. --Iantresman 10:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying no comparisons can be drawn? Joshuaschroeder 12:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons and analogies can of course be drawn, but whether they are relevant in concluding what plasma comology includes, I don't know. As I've said, I am happy to wait for Eric Lerner to clarify the situation. --Iantresman 13:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that we should let Eric Lerner be the final authority on how the English language is used. In Misplaced Pages, the natural meaning of terms should be used when possible, i.e. "plasma cosmology" should be cosmology in which plasma plays an (unusually) important role. If you want to write an article on "plasma astrophysics" and name it "plasma cosmology", I would want to see an authoritative reference for that usage. --Art Carlson 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If I look at the Misplaced Pages entry on Cosmology, I see a very general description, "the study of the universe". Then if I look at Physical cosmology, I get another more specific definition, "the study of the large-scale structure of the universe". And likewise, Big Bang cosmology, means something similar. I feel that since Eric Lerner would call himself a plasma cosmologist, he can specify that it includes anything that he wants, irrespective of how other cosmologists might use the term. And as long the article specifies what it includes, then I can't see that it matters that much.

My problem with lumping stuff under "plasma astrophysics", is that there is some which is gererally accepted, and stuff that is not. Where do I place "plasma circuits", "critical ionization velocity", "exploding double layers"? I would argue that "plasma cosmology" is a fair place to summarise them? --Iantresman 19:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is yet another pedantic strawman argument. Mainstream cosmology uses black holes as the engines of AGN activity, including jets, X-Ray emission and radio lobes. PC uses plasma processes instead of black holes to explain the same phenomenon. One of the major points of PC is that because plasma scales so well from lab to superclusters, you don't need to invent any exotic phenomena or "new" physics to explain large-scale and cosmic phenomena. This is because PC contends that they behave accurding to the same physics as laboratory, atmospheric and solar-system phenomena. I find it dizzying that trained physicists find this so difficult to grasp, let alone accept as possible. Jon 21:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That mainstream cosmologists rely on microphysical processes is indeed a strawman argument. That PC uses plasma processes is fine, but the distinction needs to be meaningful. Incredulity concerning black holes is perhaps a different subject from incredulity about the Big Bang -- or is it general relativity itself that is objected to? Joshuaschroeder 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is typical of your responses. There is no incredulity about black holes, relativity or gravitation. The explanation involves plasma processes preventing black holes from forming. You obviously don't know that, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are ignorant of PC material, and yet here you are, seemingly on some sort of bizarre crusade, trying to put the onus on others to explain themselves in pedantic detail. Why should I or anyone else have to explain it to you, when the material is available in libraries both online and off? There is no bizarre conspiracy here, no holocaust deniers, no alien abductees, no Creationists, no attempt to link PC with human mythology or archaeology, or whatever other strange preconceptions you might have. I seriously think you're in the wrong battle. Jon 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jon, as a trained plasma physicist, I assure you that there is nothing trivial about scaling phenomena over 18 orders of magnitude. Look at the article on plasma scaling for two distinct and incompatible ways to do this. --Art Carlson 15:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but the few properties needed in PC models developed by Lerner and Peratt do scale well to at least 10^14 or more, eg. nr, density x distance is constant. See Lerner's 1986 Vortex filaments paper on large scale structure. - Jon

The models must be assuming that some quantities are unimportant and can be ignored in the scaling. What quantities are these, and why are you so sure they can be varied over many orders of magnitude without making any difference? --Art Carlson 17:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of scale invariants in Lerner, Magnetic Vortex Filaments, universal scale invariants and fundamental constants IEEE-TPS, 1986 14:6 p690. Three are identified in astrophysical bodies from stars to clusters, covering a range of about 10

• J/m (angular momentum over squared mass), which restated as m = vR/G (assuming gravitational equilibrium, G is grav constant, R is the specific radius) gives a scale-constant for velocities v = aG/p, given that J = avmR where a is the inertial distribution. This holds across the range within a factor of 2 or so
• The product of particle density (n) and radius (R)
• The masses of constituent objects relate to their average separating distances by m/r, and is about 0.4 - 2 x 10/cm.

Lerner then goes on to propose a plasma model for these relationships starting from Alfven's use of force-free vortex filaments (in his 1981 book Cosmic Plasma) which can explain large scale filamentary structure. There are also some surprising relationships with fundamental constants. An interesting paper. Peratt also discusses Kirchoff's laws that apply across similar scales in Peratt, Particle beams and electric currents in the plasma universe LPB 1988 6:3 p471 . Jon 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the information is worth adding, clarifying, or referencing the material on the page on Plasma scaling? --Iantresman 10:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric Lerner's criticism

The problem here is that a single cosmology grad student, Joshua Schroeder, has devoted a vast amount of time to vandalizing entries on plasma cosmology and non-standard cosmology, describing as pseudoscience the work of Nobel laureates like Alfven and world-renowned astronomers like Halton Arp.

I’m a new-comer to editing Misplaced Pages, and I don’t have Schroeder’s unlimited time for editing wars, but I can’t see that this sort of vandalism helps Misplaced Pages’s usefulness or reputation.

If we could get the agreement of the moderator, Jossi Fresco, I would help with the following solution: Those who know something about plasma cosmology will write the article. Schroeder can then insert comments along the lines of “critics of plasma cosmology, however, contend that…”

The same solution should go for ‘non-standard cosmology’. For that matter the same solution should go for the Big Bang, with critics allowed to edit saying, “however critics of the Big Bang contend..”

I’ve written several hundred journalistic articles on science, including on a fair number of controversies, and this is how any competent journalist handles controversies. Schroeder’s approach is to attempt to suppress other views, which I regret to say is an all too common tactic among more senior proponents of the Big Bang as well.—Eric Lerner

I am extremely excited to have Eric Lerner write a new article for this page! Having an article written by one of its more notable proponents is something that doesn't often happen here on Misplaced Pages. Administrator, please unprotect the page so Eric can rewrite the article. Joshuaschroeder 08:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I will unprotect to allow this positive development to manifest. Note that any escalation in editwarring will result in immediate protection. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 08:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And the first thing that Joshuaschroeder does is remove the image under discussion! Pjacobi's criticism was that article itself does not mention jets, which I said I would add. And while I find criticisms from Art Carlson, I see no suggestion that the image should be removed.

I am happy to wait for Eric Lerner's contribution, whom I accept will know far more on the subject. I hope he'll be able to clarify some basic points of contention that we've had:

• What plasma cosmology includes:

• Just cosmological issues? (Does cosmological have a different meaning from standard cosmology)
• Plasma astrophysics?
• Formation of galaxies, stars, jets, and other astronomical objects?

Accepted plasma processes?

• Is it relevant to the discussion that 99.9% of the universe is plasma by volume?
• Is jet formation relevant to plasma cosmology, and what have plasma cosmologists said on the subject.
• Are basic, but less well-known plasma phenomenon relevant to the subject, such as (a) Double layers (b) Birkeland currents (c) Pinches (d) Critical ionization velocity

--Iantresman 21:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Primordial helium abundance

The article states first, "plasma cosmologists have also offered explanations for ... primordial helium abundance", and later, "plasma cosmology proponents do not directly explain the ratio of elemental constitutents of the universe. Rather since there is no mechanism for creation of atoms in plasma cosmology, the abundance of light elements is taken to be an initial condition." How do these statements fit together? Does plasma cosmology offer an explanation for the primordial helium abundance or not? --Art Carlson 20:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No response? I guess that means I'll have to delete this section. --Art Carlson 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an explanation. Sufficient nucleosynthesis was done in early generations of stars burning H, and we can arrive at the observed 3He, 4He, 7Li and 2H abundances without adjusting or even having to rely on η. I don't have all the references to hand, but it was developed by Lerner and others and published in IEEE TPS 1989, 17:3 p259-263. They predicted high 2H in high redshift objects, where BBN predicts none/very little. The BBN inconsistencies in predicted 7Li and 3He abundances and increased constraints on η, as discussed in | Primordial nucleosynthesis in light of WMAP, do not present themselves in the PC explanation, but there is of course the issue of where the H came/comes from in a universe of presumably infinite age. Jon 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What is "early" if the universe in infinite in age? Joshuaschroeder 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier. --Iantresman 09:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What timescale is used if the universe of an infinite age has no scale factor? How do you determine something is early in such a universe? Joshuaschroeder 14:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Timerate is determined via motion through space and Timescale is the arrangement of events used as a measure of duration .... How do you determine something is early in such a universe? If it appeared 1st before something else it would be "early" (A before B in the course of events) ... this would be relative to A and B under consideration, as something else would be before A and something would be after B under consideration. Do note that from what I seen, this infinite time of the universe (ignoring the infinite spatial extent and volume) is important to plasma cosmology (... and may explain why you, Joshuaschroeder, don't understand it). Sincerely, JDR 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Describing something as "early" or "late" refers to an absolute timescale especially if we are considering the evolution of metallicities through lookback times. If the universe were around for an infinite amount of time, why hasn't all the hydrogen turned into helium through stellar nucleosynthesis? Joshuaschroeder 16:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Describing something as "early" or "late" is not a absolute timescale ... time is relative.

Why hasn't all the hydrogen turned into helium through stellar nucleosynthesis? New hydrogen formation. Contrary to the myth of the primodial nucleosynthesis, hydrogen formation didn't last only for about three minutes ... it continues today (in areas of specific nuclear fusion reaction; not widespread, encompassing the entire universe).

Sincerely, JDR 19:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You apparently have a different theory in mind from that of Lerner mentioned above. If hydrogen is constantly created (and heavier elements constantly destoyed), then the isotope ratios should be independent of redshift. Are such disparate theories both part of plasma cosmology? --Art Carlson 19:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where "above" you are referring to (and what exact theory of Lerner you are mentioning) ... but the laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior can explain this formation ... nothing "fundamentally different" ... I did think of (and probably should have) added to the sentence "areas of specific nuclear fusion reaction" +and other mechanism. From my understanding, phenomena of electromagnetism can produce particles (out of "nothing" so to say) too.

As to the whole details involved ... this page here probably can explain it better than I could .... Sincerely, JDR 21:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For heaven's sake JS, RTFA and stop wasting everyone's time with your interminable pedantry. - Jon

Start being civil please. Joshuaschroeder 14:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jon, please mind your tone. The question of time scales in an eternal universe is legitimate and unavoidable. Either answer the question or hold your piece. --Art Carlson 15:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Apologies to everyone. But please, JS, just read the paper, there is information in it that addresses your question at least in part. We all need to do our own research, but it should be conducted in our own time, not on discussion pages. Jon 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We haven't addresses Art Carlson's original comment, that the article mentions that "plasma cosmologists have also offered explanations for ... primordial helium abundance" and "plasma cosmology proponents do not directly explain the ratio of elemental constitutents of the universe."

Related to this, I also note that Joshuaschroeder has restored the sentence "Within plasma cosmology, there have been no published papers which make predictions on the primordial helium abundance or which calculate correlation functions.".

There is a clear contradiction here. I agree that the statements should be removed until they can be substantiated. --Iantresman 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The IEEE 1989 paper I cited above is a paper that "makes predictions on the primordial helium abundance". Jon 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In what sense are these "predictions" about the primordial universe? Especially if the idea is based on an infinite universe. Joshuaschroeder 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right - "observed" helium is more accurate, since there is no primordial phase. Saying in the article that PC does not predict primordial helium abundance is silly. I stumbled upon the paper here as a PDF. Lerner's other published papers are available here too. Jon 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency

I would like to take up the issue of time scales again. The current (Lerner) version states

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology are,

1. ...
2. since we never see effects without causes, we have no reason to assume an origin in time for the universe—an effect without a cause. Thus this approach, in contrast to the currently dominant Big Bang cosmology, does not assume any beginning for the universe.
3. unlike the Steady state theory, the universe is not changeless. Rather, since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.

I understand this to say that the universe is now evolving, e.g. producing helium from hydrogen, but that this was not always so (otherwise there would be no more hydrogen around, or the universe would be filled to the brim with helium, or there is some other assumption that nobody has revealed to us yet). That means the synthesis must have started at some time, and since there was (by assumption) no Big Bang to cause it to start, it started without any cause, in contradiction to assumption number 2. Sooner or later this apparent contradiction should be commented on in the article. --Art Carlson 21:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Deeply troubled with Joshuaschroeder

I am still deeply troubled with the stance from Joshuaschroeder. I feel that I am quite familiar with Plasma Cosmolgy, having read many books and articles, and yet the more contributions I read from Joshuaschroeder, the less familiar the subject of the article becomes.

I also feel that he presents his assessment of the theory, and continually peppers it with perjorative terminogy, whose only use can be to rubbish the theory. For example:

• The labelling of the article as pseudoscience. Since there is no justification for this, I can see this only as a person opinion which goes against Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy.
• Including facetious comments, eg. about Alfvén "in 1937, while still believing that the Milky Way galaxy represented the entire extent of the universe". I have no idea whether this is true, but even if it is, I consider its inclusion as irrelevent and consquently an ad hominem attack.
• Belittling Alfvén's prediction and verification of a "galactic magnetic field". Every successful prediction in Big Bang theory is put on a pedestal, but Alfvén's prediction is "considered negligible by the majority of astrophysicists". Once again, another ad hominem attack.
• "While plasma cosmology never had the support of as large a number of astronomers and physicists...", is more bashing.
• Your earlier caption wording ".. a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates ..", has no place in an objective article, is over-general, and again attempts to smear plasma cosmologists.
• ".. have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion .." again is judgemental.
• Removal of statement on plasma physics because they are not unique to plasma cosmology. As if plasma cosmology can have nothing in common with mainstream science.

I have also discussed points of criticisms with Art Carlson's and other plasma physicists, and find their stance generally fair, informative and constructive. --Iantresman 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a few comments ...

• I concur that it's not NPOV to label of the article as pseudoscience.
• That comments needs a source ... but, if true (and I don't know if it is), many probably still believed that the Milky Way galaxy represented the entire extent of the universe. It is irrelevent and consquently an ad hominem attack.
• Belittling one theory's prediction and praising the prediction in another theory is NOT a NPOV.
• Many of the later quotes you cite (eg., "never had the support", etc.) need a citation ... otherwise it's non-objective and a vieled attempt to belittle a field of study.
• Any cosmology theory can have in common features with other mainstream scientific fields (no one cosmological theory can horde all of science). To edit otherwise is not a NPOV.

Sincerely, JDR 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better handled in an RfC. I find that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon in oppisition to my editting are the following:

• User:Reddi is well-known for his unfamiliarity with scientific subjects and has inspired a watchlist to deal with his problematic editting.
• User:Iantresman alternates from being reasonable and easy to work with to being acutely dogmatic and angry. He is admittedly not well-versed in physics/astronomy but continues to promote fairly argumentative postings.
• User:Jonathanischoice seems to revel in incivility and attacking anyone who disagrees with him.

It might be time to get an outside opinion. Joshuaschroeder 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that I don't suffer fools well, I don't have a problem with different opinions. My problem with JoshuaSchroeder is his ignorance of the relevant material. There's nothing more infurating than being forced to debate someone ignorant of the topic who is on some sort of misguided crusade. Jon 22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you want to make this a personal thing .... I am quite familiar with several scientific subjects, contrary to your opinion .... as to the the Tim Starling watchlist, it is quite old (and was created because he didn't like certian things I covered ... such as this very subject). My editing isn't "problematic" if there is a NPOV ... and, at least, it is better than your editing. Sincerely, JDR 22:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't personal at all, Reddi. You are simply an editor who likes to edit science articles without being able to answer simple questions about the subjects (such as calcuating the magnetic field due to a changing current going through a wire). Your edits and your commentary on the talkpage belie your unfamiliarity and ignorance of these subjects. Joshuaschroeder 22:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, as your asinine posts show ... I do edit science articles from a historical perspective .... and I understand much of the history of science .... as to the mathematics, no have not taken higher math (eg., Calculus, trigonometry, etc ...) but mathematics isn't the end all be all ... it can lie ("There are lies, damned lies and statistics". - Mark Twain) ... and contrary to your uninformed opinion, I am familiar and knowledgeable of these subjects (particularly from a historical viewpoint). Your editing misrepresent your feign at being NPOV. Sincerely, JDR 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I do not think that another RfC (Requst for Comments) will work. Consequently I have put in a Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration. If it is accepted, there will be an opportunity to say more. --Iantresman 23:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I just point out that an RFA is not for content disputes, which it appears this is? It is true that this is a long-standing and particularly intractable one, but nonetheless I think most editors are acting in good faith, some unfortunate personal remarks aside. –Joke137 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lerner's rewrite

I was under the impression, false evidently, that there was to be a truce in this edit war while I re-wrote this article based on actual familiarity with the field discussed. I have replaced the first two sections with something more accurate. I strongly urge those who have too much time on thier hands not to delete any of these new sections. As in the agreement that unlocked this section, I strongly suggest that others POVs be added in the form "However, critics of plasma cosmology argue that.." In this way you are not distorting what scientists have written. If these rules are not followed, I will personally appeal to the moderators to deal with the situation. I will be correcting the rest of the article over the next few days. Be patient.Elerner 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added the "ActiveDiscuss" template to alert editors and readers that the article is in the process of being rewritten. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! The new material reads clearly and is all in all NPOV ("Neutral Point of View", for newcomers), a remarkable feat for a principle contender in a controversial field. We'll help with details of formatting and such and try to discuss things here before making any heavy changes to your material. (I am looking forward to discussions of physics, but our main job is writing a good article.) --Art Carlson 07:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric, many thanks for the new introduction. I wonder whether you could comment on a couple of points that may help the scope and development of the article:

• Does the term cosmology in the phrase "Plasma cosmology" differ from that in "Big bang cosmology"?
• Is there a point at which plasma cosmology ends and plasma astrophysics begins?
• Might it be relevant to include anything on (a) astrophysical jets, (b) main sequence stars (c) plasmasphere (d) lightning (e) stellar processes (f) dusty plasmas (g) alternative redshift mechanisms (h) Hubble law (i) Plasma circuits

--Iantresman 10:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me add my accolades for the new section. The only thing I removed was the contention that astrophysicists ignore MHD inapplicability at low densities. While it's true that most have a tendency to appeal to it even when it isn't appropriate, I don't think it's as ubiquitous of a problem as it was in 1970. Alfvén was right to criticize this appeal since there is no reason to assume resistivity scaling in rarefied plasmas, but today I have never met an astrophysicist who claimed that plasmas were well-explained in the ISM using MHD. It is much nicer working with someone who is familiar with the material rather than the usual crowd of pov-pushers. Joshuaschroeder 12:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This statement is rich from someone who only recently insisted on categorising this article as pseudoscience, harassing other editors with nuisance questions that belied unfamiliarity with the literature, and describing the scientists involved as argumentative. - Jon

But Joshua, isn't changing "Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model.." to "Plasma cosmology is a nonstandard cosmological model", a non-neutral point of view. It may be nonstandard to you, and by your definition. But it's not to me, even though I can see why you might think it is?

Not according to the link, it isn't. In the context of Misplaced Pages nonstandard cosmologies describes a nonstandard cosmology. It isn't standard, that is it isn't accepted by most astrophysicists. That's fairly NPOV. Joshuaschroeder 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua here. PC is by no means 'standard' by any definition of the word I can think of. - Jon

Joshuaschroeder, you have manipulated the nonstandard cosmologies article (see the history) and then cite that article to back up your position? A bit devious ... but completely inaccurate and biased. Sincerely, JDR

You say that ".. astrophysicists ignore MHD inapplicability at low densities .." and then say that ".. it's true that most have a tendency to appeal to it even when it isn't appropriate ..". Isn't that similar to what was orginally written, that it is : ".. generally ignored by many astrophysicists"? I also found lots of papers usng MHD in the interstellar medium, but I am not sure how to tell which are using it inapplicably. --Iantresman 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

MHD conditions are the Maxwell Equations with an added assumption about resistivity. Sometimes these are not met in the ISM, but sometimes astronomers make arguments as to why they are. In any case, it isn't correct to say that astrophysicists ignore the inapplicability as most freely admit that the approximation breaks down all the time. Experts in astrophysical plasmas are, in fact, fond of saying (tongue-in-cheek) that "MHD needs to be known because it should almost never be used". Joshuaschroeder 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me say that the rewritten first sections are much improved. It is great that there is an informed proponent of plasma cosmology editing this page. Never before have I actually been able to glean from this page what plasma cosmology actually means. I have made a couple of edits to Lerner's text, editing for style and clarifying imprecise and ambiguous phrases, which I hope should be relatively uncontroversial. –Joke137 19:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I might point out that with Eric Lerner's rewriting plasma cosmology becomes far less controversial than many of the previous advocates we had here were painting it as. So far, the only definitively divergent comment in the introduction and in the cosmic plasma portion is that magnetic fields may be important on larger scales than the galaxy. Why not? I say. What is more controversial is the assertion that this allows for dispensing with the Big Bang. Lerner has been a lot more conciliatory in writing this page than he was in writing his book. But let's wait for the next installment. Joshuaschroeder 19:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to bite, it's my odd sense of humour. Does this mean you'll go away and bother Intelligent design or similar instead? They need someone like you... :-) - Jon

some questions

I have some questions about plasma cosmology that are not addressed in the article. I have asked them before, in some form, but since Lerner is now contributing to the article I hope I can get a straightforward answer. I understand that plasma cosmology, because it is not as developed as big bang cosmology, may not have answers for all these questions. Nonetheless, I think they are among the first questions that would occur to anyone looking for a competitor to the big bang theory, and should be covered in the article.

1. Does plasma cosmology accept general relativity as the theory of gravitation? If not, how does it get around all the precision tests of general relativity? Does it assume conservation of stress-energy?
2. Is the universe homogeneous and isotropic on large scales? Is it stationary on large scales? (The article suggests that the answer is no. This is relevant to the above discussion of the primordial helium abundance.) What did it look like a long time in the past?
3. The basic assumption of the theory, that "we have no reason to assume an origin in time" seems to be in contradiction to the claim that "it therefore attempts to explain the universe as much as possible in terms of known physics." Hawking proved that a cosmological singularity is inevitable a finite time in the past with known types of matter and Einstein's theory of gravity.

Joke137 21:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If joke137 really is, as claimed, “a competent cosmologist”, joke137 should tell us who he or she is. Science isn’t a secret society. It is important that scientists stand behind their views and not hide in anonymity. I personally will ignore remarks by those who remain anonymous, but will respond to reasonable questions from those who identify themselves.Elerner 06:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a scientific journal. By Misplaced Pages standards, Joke137 is not anonymous, anyway. He hasn't told us what degree he holds from what institution (neither have you), but you can learn a lot about him by looking at his extensive Talk and Contributions pages. You can also contact him personally by his email.

But getting back to the point. I find Joke137's questions very "reasonable" and would also like to know the answers. I am a competent plasma physicist (Ph.D. from the University of Washington, 16 years of fusion research at the Max Planck Institute. If that's what it takes to meet your requirements, please consider the questions as coming from me.

--Art Carlson 09:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I’ll answer the questions, but I still see no reason for anonymity. There is a pattern of conventional cosmologists, with a few exceptions, refusing to openly engage in discussion with critics of the big bang. It should end.

I’ll give my own views in response to these questions—I’m not the only one involved in the field. The first key point is methodological. Observations can contradict theory, but theory can never be used to contradict observations. There are a lot of calculations that you can do with useful theories that lead to absurd results. To give just one of many examples, it is well known that quantum electrodynamics, which has been confirmed to many decimal places, makes the prediction that there is a zero-point energy field with extremely high energy density. Combining this with general relativity, we get the absurd prediction that the universe must have an infinitesimal radius and tiny lifetime. Clearly it is the calculation that must be rejected, not the existence of the universe. Both GR and QED are, like any physics theory, limited in some ways and need to be superseded by some more advanced synthesis. But that does not prevent us from using them where they are applicable.

Hawking’s calculation is an example of this type of calculation. If the evidence points, as it does, away from a universe that emerged from a signgularity, the calculations have to be rejected. We have many sets of evidence indicating this, which will get into another long discussion, but I will point to only three. The recent surface brightness work I have done contradicts ALL Friedman-Walker-Robertson expanding universe models, which all predict a (1+z) ^-3 decline in surface brightness. The data show clearly that the universe is not expanding. Second, any universe that went through a hot dense stage would have light element abundances predicted by BB nucleosynthesis. Observation contradicts those predictions, especially in the case of lithium. Third, any such hot dense universe would have such through annihilation of matter and anti matter that the surviving density would be billions of times less than that observed today.

The surface brightness arguments assume some level of homogeneity between present and the past. I haven't read your paper, but I think it may be a bit triumphalist to claim that the data "show clearly that the universe is not expanding".

"I haven't read your paper..." It's here, and this discusses evolutionary constraints on size and brightness from UDF, and this discusses highly evolved galaxies in the UDF. Jon 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

These papers are all very nice, but I'd like to see one that is peer reviewed. I'm not in the mood to review them myself. Joshuaschroeder 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How fascinating. Jon 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The lithium abundance argument is a real weird one considering the accepted error bars I've seen in review articles are in the range of BBN.

Baryogenesis is well parametrized by the Sakharov conditions. Why do you have to assume that energy regimes we haven't explored experimentally cannot have a CP violation?

Joshuaschroeder 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It’s a really good idea to read a paper before commenting on it. The data described there seems to rule out the FRW formula, even with evolution, because the high-z galaxies would have to have impossibly high UV surface brightness if they are now observed with the FRW fading. Also, lithium observations are sufficiently accurate to rule out BBN predictions at around a 7 sigmalevel.Elerner 01:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The lithium observations you are refering to are included where? Joshuaschroeder 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would such a calculation be wrong? There are any number of possibilities but one reason is the assumption of homogeneity. If the universe has a fractal distribution of mass at all scales of dimension 1 or less, general relativistic effects will be small at all scales and the expansion or contraction of the universe will be negligible at all scales. Observation indicates that up to the largest scales we observe the universe is fractal with dimension 2, so it is not homogenous on large scales. However, if this D=2 continues up to scales of 300,000 Gpc, GR effects would be significant and contraction or expansion would occur on time scales of roughly 10^15 years. Obviously such length and time sales are far beyond our current observational abilities and have nothing to do with the big bang idea.

A fractal can be homogeneous in the sense that structure can be homogeneous as described by the running power spectrum. Joshuaschroeder 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How did the universe look? It depends on how long ago. We can observe back to z=6 and it still looks pretty much as it does now. Until we determine the true relation between distance and redshift at high z we won’t know how long ago that was.

The same? I don't think that the UDF looks the "same" as now. Joshuaschroeder 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See papers above. Jon 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we can calculate with known physics that pure hydrogen plasma clouds could create the galaxies and stars we see today, it’s logical to assume that at some remote point in time, such plasma clouds were all that there was. There is not much evidence to determine, however, when the first galaxies started to form. More observations are needed. Any discussion of what came before the hydrogen clouds is bound to be highly speculative and not worthwhile unless a connection to observation can be found. As Alfven wrote—“To try to write a grand cosmical drama necessarily leads to myth. To try to let knowledge substitute ignorance in increasingly larger regions of space and time is science.” The more we observe, the farther back we can see. To ask how things were in ”in the beginning” is to invite mythology. Elerner 21:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If for all time before "some remote point in time", "plasma clouds is all that there was", and then at some time the clouds started to form galaxies, isn't that an "an effect without a cause", in violation of the second basic assumption of plasma cosmology? --Art Carlson 15:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to Carlson’s question about the evolution of the universe: There is clearly a tendency for evolution rates to increase as we go forward in time, and thus to decrease as we look backwards in time. Superclusters evolve on far longer time scales than galaxy clusters, which are slower than galaxies, which are slower than stars. And of course here on earth, and we assume elsewhere in the universe, biological and then social processes accelerate evolution still faster. So there are no events without causes. Earlier, slower processes give rise to the conditions than allow faster and more energetic ones to come into existence.

At our present level of knowledge, we can trace that evolution only back to the formation of filamentation on the largest observable scales of a hydrogen plasma. These processes had characteristic time scales of a trillion years or more. Right now, we can’t see what processes preceded that, including those that led to the formation of the hydrogen plasma in the first place. But that is strictly a current limit on our knowledge, the frontier of what we can observe even very indirectly, not some”intial condition” of the universe. Elerner 01:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This "limit" to our knowledge is exactly the same function as an initial condition. Joshuaschroeder 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Force-free currents Illustration removal

Joshua, you've removed the illustration on force-free currents? This was illustrating:

1. The paragraph that includes the text "The first is the formation of force-free filaments. When currents move through any plasma, they create magnetic fields which in turn divert currents in such a way that parallel currents attract each other (the pinch effect). Plasma thus naturally become inhomogeneous, with currents and plasmas organizing themselves into force-free filaments, in which the currents move in the same direction as the magnetic field."
2. The text also notes that plasma cosmology also applies the "Scaleability of plasma", and "filaments .. coalescence A hierarchy of superclusters, clusters, galaxies stars and planets is thus formed."
3. Also in the text, is that ""Alfven pointed out that MHD is an approximation which is accurate only in dense plasmas, like that of stars,"
4. Most people wouldn't recognise a force-free current if it hit them in the face
5. The caption made the force-free filaments the subject of the illustration, not the solar corona.

Consequently, it seems quite reasonable to include an illustration of force-free currents, like those in the Sun? --Iantresman 08:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to illustrating force-free currents. However, using the solar corona as an illustration makes inappropriate comparisons from the standpoint that the plasmas modeled in plasma cosmology are far less dense than the solar corona, scaleability notwithstanding. Look for an illutration that is context-free or is about intergalactic force-free currents. Joshuaschroeder 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with the M87 illustration? Jon 22:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jets aren't really illustrative of force-free currents. Joshuaschroeder 05:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a simple diagram to illustrate force free filaments, which I can send to whoever is working o this. On the cosmic example, you might try to get the Yusef-Zadeh picture of the filaments at the center of the Milky way which is on the cover of my book.

I think the simple diagram would be excellent. You can upload it yourself to Misplaced Pages if you'd like. Or send it to me via e-mail and I'll upload it. Joshuaschroeder

Solar filaments are, like cosmic filaments, non-collisional, so do follow the same scaling laws. But it would be better to have a helical jet or some other cosmic scale example, in my view. Elerner 01:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology should be described only by advocates?

Also, I repeat again my strong request that critical views be inserted into the text as separate paragraphs, not by editing the text that I’ve written. Someone changed the second sentence to read “in this model, stars and all the space between them is filled with plasmas”. The stars ARE made of plasma, in this and any model that has any relation to observations. If you really want to dispute this, you should add somewhere, ”however some graduate students believe the stars are made of neutral gas or maybe green cheese.”Elerner 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:good faith. The edit was not meant to be a "critical view". It was an honest mistake. Joshuaschroeder 02:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Leave the first paragraph alone, Joshua. It is up to proponents of plasma cosmology to say what it is, not opponents. Elerner 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at Misplaced Pages it isn't. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to write an encyclopedia and explain topics following the WP:NPOV guidelines. While I am very pleased to have your contributions, if there are ways to make your or my contributions better by rephrasing or providing edits that make things clearer, whether someone is a proponent of the idea or not is irrelevent. Joshuaschroeder 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again on one of JS's bizarre tangents. I for one like Eric's paragraph better. It is obvious from this and your previous edits that you have a problem with plasma cosmology starting with the fact that almost all visible matter in the universe is in the plasma state. If it wasn't, it wouldn't emit visible light. Jon 06:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The article states, in its opening paragraph that plasma dominates the universe. It does it now in a different order that makes it clear what is controversial and what is uncontroversial. Now the sentence states what is an explicit "observable fact" and what is advocated by plasma cosmology advocates. Joshuaschroeder 06:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had it. This email was just sent to Jossi. Hopefully he can help.

Hi,

I'm afraid that the truce on plasma cosmology, if it ever existed, has broken down. The problem is exclusively, it seems, Joshua Schroeder. He will absolutely not abide by the idea that remarks critical of the topics should be inserted along the line of “critics of plasma cosmology contend..” Instead he insists on rewriting what I have written to “put words in our mouths”, to assert things that are just not true, in particular imputing to plasma cosmologists views that we neither hold nor have ever stated. This is particularly annoying in the first paragraph of the article.

I have nearly finished re-writing the article and it will definitely stay beneath your 32kbyte goal. But it looks like Joshua will simply vandalize the whole thing again. Any ideas?

Regards, Eric LernerElerner 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit to being a bit perplexed by this turn of events. I invite the other editors to point out what is wrong with my introduction. Jon likes Lerner's better for stylistic reasons, I suppose, but here are the reasons I have for repositioning the sentences:

1. Introductions should be very clear what the article is about. As this article is about plasma cosmology, we should be clear as to the fact that it is a description of the evolution of the universe involving plasma.
2. I'm aware that plasma cosmology rests on the observed fact that plasma is the dominant phase of matter in the universe. However, it seems better to point out that plasma cosmology advocates use this fact and claim that their ideas derive directly from it, rather than to simply restate a fact that can be read on the more general astrophysical plasmas page.
3. My intro is much more explicit about what is an observed fact and what is plasma cosmology.

Joshuaschroeder 07:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua,

1. I belive that our understandings of "neutral point of view" (NPOV) are different, which is why we are having the differences in contributions to the article. I feel that "Neutral point of view" does not mean 'providing all points of view', but implies 'providing a point of view, in a neutral manner'. For example:

• "Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model..". I consider this to be completely (NPOV). We could debate on this statement, such as whether it has been proven, whether it is technically a "model", etc etc. But since we can do the same with any "model", I think we have to accept that since this model has been presented in peer-reviewed journals, the statement stands.
• I consider the following statements to be non-neutral point of view:
• "Plasma cosmology is a successfull cosmological model..".
• "Plasma cosmology is an outdated cosmological model..".
• "Plasma cosmology is an unproven cosmological model..".
• "Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmological model..".
• "Plasma cosmology is a contentious cosmological model..".
• "Plasma cosmology is a controversial cosmological model..".

Another example:

• "Plasma cosmology attempts to explain..." again I consider to be (NPOV), it is an accurate statement, however you look at it.
• "Proponents claim that the plasma cosmology model..." The choice if words is demeaning. To me, to "claim" something is without foundation or substance.

1. I also believe that you're basing some of your edits on your perceived understanding of the subject, not the understanding of plasma cosmologists, or those familiar with their works. For example:

• The picture caption illustrating force-free currents in the solar corona was adequate from a plasma cosmology point of view. Whether you agree with that, or even can show it is wrong, is not relevant since the image is supporting the point of view of plasma cosmologists.
• With the force-free currents picture caption, you mentioned that "... plasmas modeled in plasma cosmology are far less dense than the solar corona, scaleability notwithstanding." That's the very point, that plasmas cosmologists note a similarity though scaling of the phenomenon. Your perception that this may not be the case, has not bearing on the suitability of the image and its caption, even if you are completely correct, and plasma cosmologists are incorrect.

1. A Wikiepedia article on a particular subject is not the place to discuss "competing" subjects. This is an article on plasma cosmology. Period. If you want an explanation on standard cosmology, that is where you will find the details. If you want to compare and contrast different cosmologies, then the article on "physical cosmologies" is probably the place. For example:

• If "plasma cosmologists suggest that synchrotron radiation in jets is derived from the acceleration of electrons by double layers through Bennett pinches occuring in Birkeland currents", then there is no need to give an alternative explanation. The statement is an accurate reflection of the point of view by plasma cosmologists.

--Iantresman 12:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, read WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. It gives guidelines for how to deal with disputes such as this. (This is in no way saying that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, only that it is outside the mainstream.)

1. Stating it is a nonstandard cosmological model is NPOV as defined on the nonstandard cosmologies page.
2. "Plasma cosmology" itself doesn't attempt to explain anything. Its proponents explain things in terms of plasma cosmology.
3. WP:NOR applies when you are inserting pictures that are controversially claimed to represent a subject. If you can show them as representing a subject, you should have a reference to them being shown for that subject.
4. Alternative explanations are required to be discussed according to the WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience guidelines above.

--Joshuaschroeder 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why do I refer to a section on pseudoscience, when you've said that "This is in no way saying that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience" (although it does contradict your adding the Pseudoscience tag to the article)?

Please disentangle your grudge against the term from what the policy describes about disputes such as this. It give guidelines for how to edit controversial articles in science. Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just because your use of the word "nonstandard" corresponds with a Misplaced Pages definition, does not imply that its use is neutral. Non sequitor springs to mind. Furthermore, the neutrality of the Nonstandard cosmology article has also been disputed, and I note that you are heavily involved in its editing. Conflict of interest also springs to mind.

Nonstandard cosmology is simply an umbrella term and is well-defined on the page. If you have a problem with that article, please edit over there. Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• If plasma cosmology "proponents explain", why didn't you edit the sentence to say "Plasma cosmologists explain...", instead of "Proponents claim..."

It is simply stylistic. The cosmologists aren't "plasma", they are proponents of "plasma cosmology" which is the term. I haven't seen a reference to someone being a "plasma cosmologist" except by plasma cosmology advocates. I'm simply adopting a neutral tone since there is dispute in the cosmological community as to what qualifies as a cosmologist (see Ned Wright's page, for example). Generally the problem of adjective application is one that is avoided in places that there are new and emerging fields. Plasma cosmologist is a neologism to be avoided if possible. Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• WP:NOR refers to "No original research". Are you suggesting that my the image and its caption is "orignal research", and despite eveytyhing in the article, it does not have the characteristics described? Or are you suggesting that its application, specifically the Cygnus Loop is is Original Research? In which case, are you expecting a peer-reviewed citation for each and every nebula?

It's application in particular is original research and yes, I expect a peer-reviewed citation for nebula that are included as images in this article. Why is that outlandish? Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

--Iantresman 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, for you to think that the pseuodscience guidelines have anything to do with plasma cosmology shows where the problem lies. Pseudoscience is not minority scientific viewpoints—it is something that does not use the scientific method. Clearly those who awarded Aflven the Noble prize did not think he was a pseudoscientist. More importantly, so long as those who support the big bang theory simply malign those who criticize it, cosmology is in danger or turning into a religion, where the dominant orthodoxy cannot be questioned.

What is wrong with your edits is that you persist in making the paragraph imply that it is the view of plasma cosmologies that the universe is made up overwhelmingly of plasma. That is not our view, that is undisputed fact. Show us where in the universe neutral gas exists—-gas with ionization level so low its conductivity can be ignored—-as more than about 0.1% of the mass. Show us where astronomers contest the overwhelming dominance of the plasma state. If you can’t, leave the paragraph alone.

The paragraph as it stands now says what plasma cosmology is. The second sentence quickly defines plasma and tells the reader why it is relevant to cosmology. Leave it alone. Or, as I have reputedly suggested, add that “Joshua Schroeder, however, believes that the universe is not almost entirely plasma.”Elerner 16:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this can be "left alone" in an NPOV article. I agree that the definition of plasma and the fact that it is ubiquitous needs to be included. However, its relevance to cosmology is the POV of the advocate and needs to be explained as such. I do not dispute the universe is plasma and the article right now states it is an "observational fact that the stars and essentially all of the space between them is filled with plasma". That's pretty clear.

Secondly, please read NPOV#pseudoscience before passing judgement on my reference to it. It merely explains how to handle these types of disputes and is not a demarcation of pseudoscience.

Joshuaschroeder 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Cygnus radio loop

Can somebody give a cite for this caption?

The Cygnus Loop has characteristics of an interstellar Birkeland current: (1) A plasma medium (2) Filamentation (3) Braiding, twisted "rope-like" structure.

I'd like to see a citation stating that it has the characteristics of an interstellar Birkeland current with the three items listed as part of it. Thanks, Joshuaschroeder 13:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. Which of the following do you disagree with:

• A Birkeland current has characteristics that includes (1) A plasma medium (2) Filamentation (3) Braiding, twisted "rope-like" structure.
• The Cygnus Loop (Veil Nebula) is predominently a plasma.
• The Cygnus Loop is filmentary.
• The Cygnus Loop appears to be braided.
• The Cygnus Loop appears to be "rope-like".

--Iantresman 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the points necessarily. I just want a citation. Joshuaschroeder 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

I observe that although some progress has been achieved, there is still a high leve of contention amongst editors. Most of the conversation on this page is on the POV of the editors rather than a discussion on how to improve the article from the reader's perspective.

In good faith, and as a non-involved editor (I do not profess any POV on this subject) I provide these suggestions:

• Regardless of your POV, think of the reader:
  • Has the reader all the information he/she needs to understand this subject?
  • If there are competing views, are these clearly presented and supported by references?
  • If there are competing theories, are you predominantly including a complete "See also" section with wikilinks to relevant articles?
  • Own your POV. Accept that you have a POV, and that you are trying to assert it. This is only human nature. If you want to write NPOV you first must accept that you have one and then conciously elevate yourself above it. It will be easier.
  • If this is stressing you out too much, consider taking a couple of weeks of wikivacation. It does one wonders.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi for these suggestions. I have now completed the work that i wanted to do on the article. It needs more illustrations and references but not many so that it will not be too long.Elerner 17:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, as someone with no bias on the subject, your comments on "point of view" would be valuable as a style guidance:

• I accept that there are competing theories and views. But this article is about one specific point of view. Isn't it the object of the article to PRIMARILY explain that point of view? And THEN note that there are other points of view?
• Can you confirm your understanding of "neutral point of view"? Are either the following accurate:

• To detail all points of view equally?
• To detail a single point of view in a neutral manner?

• Should an article on "left wing politics" include the points of view on "right wing politics"? Would we end up with two similar articles in which the order of the subject is changed?

--Iantresman 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua is acting like a child, reinstating his first pragraph after it has been explained to him why it is factually wrong, and without any defense of his actions. I am requesting that this page be frozen with my first paragraph in place or something else be done to stop one individual from single-mindly wrecking this article.Elerner 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:NPA. Joshuaschroeder 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua won't compromise? Sady no ... and he usually only goes with his "right" version in many of the articles I have seen that he edits. Sadly, not very NPOV. Sincerely, JDR 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Jossi. PLEASE lock the article. Joshuaschroeder's editing is intolerable. I don't recognise the subject after his changes. We need to discuss "neutral point of view", and Misplaced Pages style. I would like to nominate you to help us understanding and clarify it. --Iantresman 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am even happy to defer queries to Art Carlson, a physicist with knowledge of plasmas, but who I'm sure won't mind me saying, falls more on the "mainstream" plasma physics side, than the "plasma cosmology" side. --Iantresman 19:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph suggestion

I have suggested the following for the first paragraph:

Plasma cosmology is a nonstandard cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology attempts to explain the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background, in terms of the plasma phase of matter, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely. Proponents claim that the plasma cosmology model is derived from models of plasma physics arrived at by laboratory experiments as well as the implications of the observational fact that the stars and essentially all of the space between them is filled with plasma.

This is in contrast to User:Elerner's suggestion:

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. The stars and essentially all of the space between them are filled with plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely. Plasma cosmology attempts to explain the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background, in terms of this ubiquitous phase of matter.

Here are the reasons I think my version is better. Please respond to them in turn:

• We need to be clear that this is a nonstandard cosmology. This isn't to denigrate or criticize plasma cosmology, it's just to describe it as what it is: nonstandard.
• The second sentence in Mr. Lerner's version reads a bit halting. A reader should be told in particular plasma cosmology tries to do. My version spells it out: It attempts to explain various features in terms of plasma. This is in contrast to Mr. Lerner's version which simply starts out by stating the uncontroversial observational fact that the stuff between the stars is a plasma and then goes on to explain why this is important. This is putting the cart before the horse. The motivation for including this fact is to understand plasma cosmology in the context of the article. My version does this, Mr. Lerner's does not.
• This observational fact should be spelled out as observational fact if it is to be including in a page that is devoted to a controversial subject. It should be noted that this is not controversial (and it should also be noted that plasma cosmology is controversial).
• The second sentence of Mr. Lerner's introduction lacks context. The page isn't, after all, about astrophysical plasmas in general, but it is about plasma cosmology in particular.
• No one has pointed out any errors in my version. Instead, it seems that the popular tactic is to engage in personal attacks. Please, consider the actual text and respond.

Thank you.

--Joshuaschroeder 20:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this subject, but by adding just two words to Elerner's version of the intro, it can be resolved.

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. According to this model, the stars and essentially all of the space between them are filled with plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely. Plasma cosmology attempts to explain the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background, in terms of this ubiquitous phase of matter.

To complete the NPOV, you should add something along the lines of: "Other models exists that attempt to explain the evolution of the Universe. Competing models include aaaaa bbb, dddd eee, and fff ffff", if there are such. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle. I have no problem with the "nonstandard" comment AFTER the initial explanation, as suggested by Jossi. I don't think that Joshuaschroeder would disagree with the second statement "the stars and essentially all of the space between them are filled with plasma", in which case the additional words 'According to this model' would be moved to the more contentious statement beginning "Plasma cosmology attempts to explain the large scale structure...", which doesn't really need the words 'According to this model' because it already begins "Plasma cosmology attempts..."

I don't see Jossi suggesting that we put the nonstandard comment AFTER the intial explanation. I also disagree with Jossi's edit as the description of th universe is not part of the model. My edit makes this clear. Joshuaschroeder 22:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, I consider your last sentence to be in error because it suggests that plasma cosmologists base their view only on the observation evidence that the universe is mainly plasma. Alfvén developed his model based on experimental research in the laboratory, which he then applied with astronomical observations. This is kind of explained in the new diagram I added at the top of the page, but also more fully in the article itself.

--Iantresman 21:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your criticism, Ian. I think you are just wanting to include something in the opening paragraph on laboratory research. I have no problem including this in the introduction. I'll do it right now. Joshuaschroeder 22:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, the point here is that the statement that the stars and the matter between them consists 99.9% of plasma is NOT an assertion just of plasma cosmologists. It is a fact undisputed by just about anyone in astronomy except Joshua. Joshua insists on moving this undisputed fact into a sentence that implies it is the opinion only of plasma cosmologists. It is also totally false to say that plasma cosmologists base their approach only on the fact that the universe is nearly all plasma. None of us have said that this demonstrates plasma cosmology is true. It is just one of the starting points, although an important one. So Joshua’s versions are confusing readers on both these points.

If you don’t believe me, consult ANY astronomer—not graduate students!—and you’ll get the same answer. Non-ionized matter, as far as we know, exists only in planets. Everything else is plasma.Elerner 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the order within the second sentence to improve the flow and to make it clear that the second sentence is explaining the first--what is plasma and why is it important in the cosmos.:"Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely, makes up the stars and fills essentially all of the space between them. "Elerner 23:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The intro looks good to me now. What about adding a sentence about competing models. As a reader, I would want to have this information available in the introduction. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with current version of the intro. It features for a statement about plasma cosmology from a plasma cosmology point of view, followed by a statement about an alternative cosmolgy in relation to the subject of the article.

I wonder Joshua, whether the big bang article editors will allow you to make their article "more neutral" by adding a comment about plasma cosmology? --Iantresman 00:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I give up. I'll just change the first paragraph back every time I think of it. Part of the time it will give and accurate view and part of the time it will be Joshua's disinformation. I still think it should be locked with the my intro in place, but if Jossi does not agree, I'll just keep putting it back. I am not sure this is a good way to distribute knowledge.Elerner 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit was apparently in violation of the three-revert rule. Please be aware of this! Also, please use edit summaries and EXPLAIN why you made a change. I made a good-faith attempt at compromise: the text you wrote for the introduction has several problems, and despite your expertise you cannot dictate the ultimate form this article will take, only try to constructively shape it, just like anyone else. –Joke137 00:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I see with your version of the intro is that 50% of it is about what opponents of the theory think than about the theory itself. To make it NPOV, you could write that there are alternative models, such as big bang, and provide a wikilink to that article. Alsdo, for NPOV, you cannot just say Plasma cosmology is considered to be a non-standard cosmology. You have to say who considers it to be non-standard. Otherwise you are stating a POV as if it was a fact. All POVs need to be attributed in ordwer to respecvt NPOV. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV version

May I suggest this version? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely, makes up the stars and fills essentially all of the space between them. Plasma cosmologists attempt to explain the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background, in terms of this ubiquitous phase of matter.

For other alternative models that describe the structure and evolution of the universe that fundamentally contradicts the basic aspects of the big bang model, see non-standard cosmology.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics