Misplaced Pages

Talk:Plasma cosmology: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:16, 12 May 2007 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Scott's book: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:55, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,179 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{| name="notice" class="messagebox" id="bizan standard-talk" style="background: #bee; border: 1px solid #666666; text-align: center; font-size: 100%;"
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
| | '''Notice: ] is banned from editing this article.'''
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=low}}
|-
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=low}}
| style="text-align: left; border-top: 1px solid #666666; " | The user specified has been banned by the ] from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
<sub>Posted by ] 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See ].</sub>
|} }}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{physics|class=|importance=low}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=cf|style=long}}
{{controversial3}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== "Electric Universe (physics)" redirects here ==
Please see the following for older discussions of this article:
{{atop|This section is over a year old, please don't re-open it. Also, avoid psychoanalysis of other editors, that's ] territory. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)}}
*]
"]" is a redirect to here.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


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


But if this redirect is incorrect, then attention of some sort is needed at that redirect itself so it doesn't point here. (That might be deleting the redirect (and perhaps salting it? although that may be extreme); it might be providing a stub EU article. But this parenthetical "what to do" is relatively secondary to the primary point "something needs doing".)
No active discussion was happening regarding any disputes, so the dispute tag was removed. --] 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Could those who know about the topics (I know nothing at all about either) suggest which way to go?
:Sorry, still totally disputed. A lack of discussion does make not disputes go away. Fixing the disputed text does. I'll make some comments a little later --] 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
::Well, I appreciated your comments, but they didn't indicate that anything was "totally disputed". --] 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


:Per policy, there really isn't a lot of choice involved. Either find sources that directly state how "Electric Universe' relates to 'Plasma cosmology', and include an explanation based on such content in the article, or delete the redirect. Unexplained 'redirects' that merely insinuate some sort of connection aren't remotely appropriate. ] (]) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
==Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology==
I object to the use of "non-standard cosmology" for three reasons:
*(1) I can find no citations to Plasma cosmology being described as a non-standard cosmology. There is one reference to Peratt describing "In this nonstandard picture, swirling streams of electrons and ions form filaments that span vast regions of space"; this is not the same as describing Plasma Cosmology as such.
*(2) The term "non-standard cosmology" appears to be infrequently, and does not appear to have any standard definition, and is not the "opposite" of "Standard Cosmology", a proper noun.
*(3) Some definitions of "non-standard" are value-negative.
I would like to describe "Standard Cosmology" as an alternative cosmology for these reasons:
*(1) I can find several references of "Plasma Cosmology" being described as "alternative"
*(2) I can find no references to the word "alternative" being used in a value-negative manner.
I an happy for "alternative cosmology" to link to the poorly-named article "non-standard cosmology" --] 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


::Thanks. So you're suggesting RfD of the "EU (physics)" redirect? Fine with me. But I've never done one of those, and there seem to be several options (speedy; discussion; etc.). Could you, with your greater experience and understanding of the "per policy" issues, actively initiate the appropriate RfD mechanism? Thanks. ] (]) 12:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
::Alternative cosmology is fine with me. --] 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


:::Probably best to leave it for a few days, in case anyone can come up with a relevant source. ] (]) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
:::The current situation is that "Standard Cosmology" is the overwhelming consensus view, with theories that differ significantly hardly being given a glance. "Standard/non-standard" reflects this state, while "alternative" can be read as "one of several suggestions on a more or less equal footing". But, hey, I don't want to stir up trouble when Ian and Joshua can agree on something. (And Ian's arguments are not without merit either.) --] 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


::::Relevant? Sure, right from the : "The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology". But nothing on that page is even close to passing as a reliable source. Here's a : "and so plasma cosmology — rebranded a few decades ago as the electric Universe..." Given how fringe all of this is, that should be sufficient to keep the redirect, no? - ] (]) 19:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
==Originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s==
While Alfvén is generally credited with Plasma Cosmology in the 1960s, (eg. ), Alfvén and Arrhenius credit ] in 1908 (See ), and this is endorsed by Peratt (). --] 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


:::::Well, if this target article, P.C., is fringe, shouldn't there be a <nowiki>{{Fringe theories|...}}</nowiki> template at the head of this article? ] (]) 22:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
::Cosmology as a subject didn't exist in 1908 because the ] had not yet resolved the scale of the universe. --] 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


::::::I completely agree that it should. - ] (]) 01:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::To be clearer, we are writing this article in 2007 when the subject matter of cosmology is linked to scales that are larger than the galaxy. Since it is clear that Kristian Birkeland did not discuss such scales, stating that plasma '''cosmology''' began with Birkeland is inappropriate. Birkeland may have provided antecedent ideas to plasma cosmology (just as, for example, ] provided the same for standard cosmology), but he did not present an argument for explaining the dynamics at the largest scales. That would be left to Alfven and Klein. --] 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


:Hoo boy. This would take a while to dig up. The short version is that this started out as the "electric universe" concept but quickly got renamed to "plasma cosmology" when scientists rightly pointed out that the universe doesn't work the way its proponents claimed. I remember seeing some of its proponents fervently arguing for it way back in the early 00s... but that's not a reliable source. It might be difficult to actually track down an RS regarding the tie between the two. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
:::*Cosmology as a term existed well before the Shapley-Curtis debate, and it is arguable whether the word Cosmology has identical meanings in Standard Cosmology and Plasma Cosmology. Birkeland wrote that:
:::::"It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space"
:::::"This theory differs from all earlier theories in that it assumes the existence of a universal directing force of electromagnetic origin in addition to the force of gravitation, in order to explain the formation round the sun of planets -- which have almost circular orbits and are almost in the same plane -- of moons and rings about the planets, and of spiral and annular nebulae."]
:::*To summarise, Birkeland writes that he considers (1) the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds (2) a universal electromagnetic forces (3) in addition to gravity, and, (4) its importance in the formation of spiral and annular nebulae.
:::*ie. Birkeland's theory parallels that of Plasma Cosmology.
:::*But this is not the place to make the argument; Alfvén, Arrhenius and Peratt have already stated that they credit Birkeland with the seeds of the origin of Plasma Cosmology, regardless of whether you, me and them are correct or accurate. --] 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Here's my take. As I understand it, plasma cosmology is an attempt by some actual cosmologists and physicists to come up with a working alternative to standard cosmology that pays more attention to the tenets of plasma physics, in combination with gravitation, to model large scale structure, radiation background, galactic evolution, the light elements, and so on. It is certainly a minority area, by no means complete, it is even controversial, and so on; but the likes of Birkeland, Hannes Alfvén, Perratt, Halton Arp, Lerner, the Burbidges, and so on who contributed to its development are/were published working astronomers or scientists in their own right. Mavericks, maybe. In contrast, the "electric universe" folks as far as I can tell are ] fans who are trying to use some plasma cosmology ideas to make their other loony ideas sound more respectable. Their main channel seems to be their https://www.thunderbolts.info/ website, where they pedal books and flaky YouTube "documentaries" which are essentially retreads of '']'' and '']''. I think it's safe to say that while PC is an exploratory diversion in otherwise ordinary physics, with few proponents and plenty of critics, it nonetheless sticks to the usual methods of scientific enquiry; while EU is more like intelligent design or flat-earth theory, cherry picking some "sciencey" sounding things to prop up weird beliefs: that Venus popped out of Jupiter one day and went whizzing by the Earth, and the Egyptians all wrote about it, or something - I don't know, I didn't read it. Why would I? It's drivel. — ] (]) 01:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the term "cosmology" has been around for a long time and has come to mean many things. However, in the context of "plasma cosmology" it means exactly what this article says it means. Birkeland was not in the business of proposing alternative cosmological models. Crediting Birkeland for the seeds of the origin of plasma cosmology is akin to crediting Olbers with the seeds of the origin of standard cosmology. That doesn't mean that plasma cosmology began in 1908 any more than standard cosmology began in 1823. --] 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


:Once you have to resort to personal attacks, you lose all credibility to comment in the first place. It’s bullying, which in turn is a sign of insecurity and phobia, conscious or otherwise. ] (]) 09:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::*Peratt says otherwise: "The year 1996 marks the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology; its origins may be traced to the seminal research first published by Kristian Birkeland in 1896." (, Peratt, A. L., ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227, p. 3-11.). *See also, , Peratt, Anthony L., ''Sky and Telescope'', volume 69, page 389
::That comment was left over a year ago. Please don't dredge up old issues. Also, your own psychoanalysis of the editor is a ]. Don't do that. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::*Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, also says otherwise in ''A History of Modern Planetary Physics'', Stephen George Brush, Cambridge University, Press, ISBN 0521552141 (page 49)
{{abot}}
::::::*Alfvén and Arrhenius say otherwise.
::::::*You and I do not have to agree with them, but they are all verifiable. --] 12:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


== He also reported that flat galaxy rotation curves were simulated without dark matter. ==
::::::::Actually, these sources do not address the fundamental issue. Peratt is talking about plasma astrophysics and cosmology, so we need a little crowbar to separate these points. Similarly, you didn't link to where Brush, Alfven, or Arrhenius distinguish between the foundational work of plasma astrophysics and the foundational work of plasma cosmology. While you yourself may not believe there is a distinction between the two subjects, we have been working at this article with a distinct separation between them. --] 12:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


The tag asks for this sentence to be discussed or clarified, so here goes. Clearly the idea that the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology is not accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus which explains it using dark matter. However, that is not what the sentence is arguing, it is simply stating that according to Peratt the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology. This is well documented in the sources already cited in the article. So I removed the "dubious" tag. Hope that helps? Comments? ] (]) 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::*Plasma Cosmologists do necessarily separate cosmology and astrophysics since the same processes are involved. Recall that Plasma Cosmologists do not have a beginning of the Universe as do Big Bangers, so the same processes they see in, for example, the creation of galaxies, are the same processes that were seen billions of years ago, and are the same processes that will explain galaxy formation in billions of years time.
:I agree, that's how I read it as well. ] (]) 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::*Peratt attributes the work of Birkeland to the founding of Plasma Astrophysics '''and''' Cosmology (see quote above).
:::::::::*I provided a link to Alfvén and Arrhenius's comments on Birkeland above, in ''Evolution of the Solar System'' (1976), see .
:::::::::*And Professor of the History of Science, Stephen G. Brush, wrote about Birkeland's contribution to Alfvén's work in in ''A History of Modern Planetary Physics'' (1999) on :
:::::::::::"One other theory must be noted because, though generally ignored in the decade after it was proposed, it was later recognized as a precursor of Alvén's cosmogony. Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), a Norwegian geophysicist, studied cathode ray discharges from magnetized globes in connection with the aurora and other solar-terrestrial electromagnetic phenomena. In 1912 he proposed that the Sun emits charged particles into space; some of them cluster into orbits determined by the solar magnetic field and eventually form planets"
:::::::::*I understand there are differences between ] and ], and the quote above focuses on planet formation, but Birkeland himself says that he is also applying his "universal force" to "spiral and annular nebulae." in his "The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903", Section 2. Chapter VI: (1908)
:::::::::*Alfvén, Arrhenius, Brush and Peratt all attribute the origins of Plasma Cosmology to Birkeland. --] 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Would it clutter up the intro too much to say "Plasma cosmology is an alternative cosmology that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces inherent to astrophysical plasma. It was originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s, although some of the ideas can be traced back to the work of Kristian Birkeland around the turn of the century. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas ..." --] 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::*Sounds good to me, and I'll add some of the references I've provided earlier. --] 10:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep such a statement out of the lead as it is peripheral to the main points of the article regarding ambiplasma and the eventual falsification of the theory. Maybe putting it in the section which describes the history of the idea would be a good idea. -] 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:That, of course, is the alternative. I think the antecedents of an idea are worth mentioning, but the intro is not usually the best place for them. If there is a history section (at least two or three sentences) later on, then Birkeland could wait till then. The third possibility is a footnote. --] 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::I put it in the Alfven/Klein cosmology section. --] 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==Protoscience vs Fringe citations==
*ScienceApologist, you removed the Protoscience category tag because you were not aware of any reference to it.
*You also added the Fringe Science tags, on the grounds that they are "generally considered fringe". Misplaced Pages requires verifcation, no hearsay. I am requesting a couple of citations, because I do not know anyone (who is verifiable) who considers the subject to be fringe. --] 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

**Sour grapes and possible violation of ]. It is fringe because it is nonstandard. --] 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::*Don't sour grapes me, and threaten me with violations.
::*Fringe is not synonymous with non-standard, and I do not agree with your personal categorisation. I would still like a citation please. --] 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::] is defined. Do you have any evidence to show that this endeavor is not fringe? --] 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Your edit requires your verification. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article".] --] 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::According to the arbcom decision, topics generally considered as fitting a certain category are fine to categorize as such. You are wrong and this discussion is over unless you can find another Wikipedian who agrees with you. You continue to violate ] in defiance of your probation. Keep it up and I will report you. --] 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::*I have asked for verification of some information, one of Misplaced Pages's '''core content policies'''. If the subject is generally considered fringe, then you'll have no problem coming up with citations that generally support this.
:::::::*If the best that you can come up with is to (a) allege sour grapes, (b) threaten me with WP:POINT (c) threaten me with "defiance of your probation", then by all means report me.
:::::::*I'm here to edit, and make sure that the "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability". --] 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::If this discussion is really about the category "fringe science" (and not about the category "protoscience", in a ]ed way), then I don't understand your objection, Ian. Are you looking for a citation that refers to plasma cosmology explicitly as "fringe science"? I don't think that is required. From the first line of ],
:::::::::'''''Fringe science''' is a phrase used to describe
:::::::::*''] ]
:::::::::*''in an established ]
:::::::::*''that departs significantly from ] or ] ].
::::::::Do you think
::::::::*that plasma cosmology is nonscientific,
::::::::*that cosmology is not an established field, or
::::::::*that plasma cosmology does not depart significantly from standard cosmology?
::::::::--] 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::*I am not sure I agree with the description that fringe science "''departs significantly'' from ] or ] ]" (my emphasis). I can find no sources supporting this description. And the ] article also says that the term may be pejorative.
:::::::::::If you think you can improve the fringe science article, you should discuss that there. After a new consensus on the definition has been reached, then we can apply it here. --] 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*It seems to me that the description of "]", could also be consistent with Plasma Cosmology, but as ScienceApologist pointed out, there is "no protoscience indicated in the sources." Personally, I might like to add the Protoscience tag; but "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability".
:::::::::*At the very least we should be consistent with our assessment of category tags. So if the "Protoscience" tag is not suitable because ScienceApologist notes that it lacks sources, then by the '''same''' criteria, the "Fringe science" tag, and the farcical "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation", should be removed too. --] 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know if you agree, but I already said I don't think it is necessary to find a source that uses the exact phrase of a category. Conforming to the definition is enough. I agree we should be consistent, and I contend that plasma cosmology clearly fits the definition of fringe science, and probably does not fits the definition of protoscience (which unfortunately is not quite so clear). --] 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::*We'll disagree on this issue, but I'll let it go. --] 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

==Drew and Thornhill/Talbott links==
Recently ] added links to and . These web sites are full of errors, so that we cannot represent them as sources of further information. They may nonetheless be interesting and appropriate as descriptions of the sociological phenomenon of plasma cosmology advocates (outside of academic circles), but then we need to label them differently. In fact, if want to do that, we might need to add a short section to the text about these "religious" plasma cosmologists. Up to now we have represented only those advocates striving to be scientific. I'd like to hear from the other editors before taking action. --] 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*I'm not aware of any sources that mention or describe "religious" plasma cosmologists, nor any sources that describe their Web sites as "full of errors".
*I'm not sure what you mean by "advocates striving to be scientific". Does Misplaced Pages "strive to be scientific"? --] 11:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Art, the Velikovskian advocates jump on Alfven's bandwagon, but are themselves promoting their own versions of the "electric universe". Thornhill, Scott, etc. are not reliable sources for this article. Likewise, personal websites such as thunderbolts.info do not belong linked here. --] 13:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:::ScienceApologist, please provide a source, any source, that suggests that Scott is an advocate of Velikovsky. --] 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

*Are these websites "full of errors" or filled with contary facts and opinions to those accepted by consensus science as "generally acceptable"? As a newcomer, I don't mean to come across as argumentative or disrespectful, but the tone here strikes me as a bit arrogant and not quite so interested in neutrality and the citing of non-original research/further info sources so much as trying to protect readers of the encyclopedia from alternate viewpoints. Religious plasma cosmologists? Wow, that's a new (ad hominem?) one. The suggestion to re-classify the Thornhill/Talbot sources comes across as a tad condescending. Just my own (non-professional) opinion of how it's sounding. ] 06:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::''In my opinion'', there are many statements on these web sites that are not simply contrarian but are wrong. For present purposes, let's say there are many statements that would not meet Misplaced Pages's standards of being attributable to a reliable source and representing a significant minority viewpoint. I strongly support Misplaced Pages's policies, including ]. After you have been around awhile, if you find that I am not being true to that goal, then please hit me upside the head.
::I have made some observations that lead me to suspect that some advocates of plasma cosmology see their beliefs in a way that can be reasonably described as "religious". I do not mean that to be pejorative. It is, of course, important to distinguish between scientific arguments and faith-based arguments. My evidence does not currently rise above Misplaced Pages standards of ]. In fact, it is more speculation than research. I was looking for a way that we could expose the readers to these alternative viewpoints without breaking the ground rules. As you see, I wasn't able to find a convincing one.
::--] 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::*Thank you. I appreciate your integrity. As a long, long term *user* (complete newbie to editing, tho') of Wiki I, too, appreciate the policies. Semantics can be troubling, I know. You see, where you may be sensing religious fervor, to me I just see passionate expression and the excitable thrill of discovery in new ideas that possibly just may herald profound insight into, and integration of, many if not all of our scientific disciplines. That's just *my* opinion. And maybe the devil is in the details in that many statements from the sites are wrong from specific and relative perspectives, but holy cow, could that not be said of just about any theory whether generally accepted and peer reviewed or not? In how many cases could it be said that today's acceptable truth was yesterday's disputed heresy?

:::*Frankly, I came to my old stand-by (Wiki) searching for an unbiased, balanced article on "Electric Universe Theory." I had already familiarized myself thoroughly with with the theory elsewhere (ala Thunderbolts, Holoscience, et al) but wanted Wiki's perspective and hoped to see a good, over all summary. Shoot, I can't even find what I guess you might call a "zealots'" article (joking). I did run across the arbitration fire fight. Jeeze, one would think the sacred cow of generally accepted science had been threatened by a barbecue. The current vacuum of information and viewpoint saddens me. Now maybe it was just the way the material was presented. Not having seen it I couldn't say. But I do hope someone comes up with a new one, or at least a substantial sub-topic to it here under Plasma Cosmology, whatever. I'd try my hand at it but, alas, am woefully unskilled with the technical verbiage required. Besides, some of the "authority" types I read from the arbitration around the subject are *way* too sensitive (i.e. taking themselves much too seriously, IMO) for my comfort level. But that's probably the idea. It's a shame because I think Wiki is diminished by the absence and unnecessary furor. ] 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


::* Much of Alfven's work is controversial, radical, and outside the mainstream. Do you wish to banish this from Wiki? For example, the below is quoted from a BB conversation -

"...Alfven suffered no lack of condescension and ridicule in his lifetime, given that his ideas were then, and are still now, considered radical. He was forced to publish in lesser journals, mostly outside the US and UK, and frequently in Russia. His work first received wider recogntion with Cosmical Electrodynamics, published by Oxford University Press, in 1950, but he was not awarded the Nobel Prize until 1970. This seems surprising considering his many achievements.

At his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize he again pointed out the fallacy of Frozen in Magnetic Fields, a nonsense that is still prevalent in the mainstream today. Although he originally proposed this idea, he quickly abandoned it, because it was wrong, a fact that the mainstream seem happy to ignore.

He was also a vociferous critic of the Big Bang, and the approach generally favoured by Big Bangers, that of starting-out from idealised mathematical principles.

Furthermore, in 1937 Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasma carried the electrical currents which create the magnetic field. Is this idea acceptable to the mainstream?..." D V Drew

==This article is POV'ed and non-factual==

This article is POV'ed and non-factual. I will not edit it because of the wrath of various ardent POVs.

Sad that POV pushers have unbalanced this article. I guess that is why there is the ]]. ] 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Comparison to mainstream cosmology==
This section starts with the statement:
*From a theoretical point of view, there remain a number of problems with the plasma cosmology model.
:*I'm not aware of any peer reviewed literature that supports this statement, can we have a citation please.--] 09:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::*Basic cosmology publications support this summar statement as listed below. Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia. --] 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

*Who the hell do you think you are removing the disputed tag, and requests for citations. And how dare you accuse me of POV pushing, adding tags is no such thing.
*And what do you mean by "Pandering to Velikovskians"? Who do you have in mind?
*This continually association of plasma cosmology with pseudoscience, fringe science, and Velikovsky is farcical, and your judgmental editing technique does you no credit.
*Note Wikipedian etiquette on editing BEFORE reverting everything you don't like. --] 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::Peratt speaks to your Velikovskian group in the UK, I see. The association is becoming more and more unmistakable. As for your own POV-pushing and continual insertion of Don Scott's nonsense, I stand by my actions. You know the steps of ]. Try them out. --] 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::*What?!! Are you calling ''Peratt'' a Velikovskian based on a talk? And if this is a criticism, why did you leave all of Peratt's references in the article? In which case, who are the Velikovskians I am supposed to be pandering to? --] 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::*I'm free to make commentary on the talkpage, Ian. Yes, I think Peratt is edging ever closer towards Velikovskian pseudoscience, for better or worse. No, I'm not going to include this in the article. Including Don Scott's ] as a resource here is pandering to his thunderbolts.info Velikovskian-inspired pseudoscience. That's why it is rightly removed. --] 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::*I still don't get what Peratt has to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --] 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Don Scott is not a ]. The citation requests are tendentious and the totally disputed tag does not belong here since there has been no declaration of how the dispute proceeds on this page. --] 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::*What has PERATT got to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and Scott's book on Plasma Cosmology? --] 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::The association between this subject and Velikovskian pseudoscience is becoming more and more apparent. --] 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::*Sorry? What does your perceived association of plasma cosmology and Velikovsian pseudoscience (which no one else on the planet shares), have to do with your removal of my disputed tag, two requests for citations, and a reference to Scott's book on the subject? --] 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::*I was responding to another question you asked. --] 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

*Being non-specific is not very helpful, and if it is your intent to be vague, and draw things out, then so be it. Well start again and do it one item at a time so there is no ambiguity.

===Scott's book ===

*You removed the reference to Scott's book on plasma cosmology because of "POV pushing". Twice. This article is about Plasma cosmology, and so is Scott's book. How can this be POV pushing? --] 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm trying to follow some of this stuff, and here's what I found on the Internet: Scott is a "supporter of Saturnian Theory" , which teaches that "4186 BC...is the moment of 'Creation.'" , a site that goes on to explain that Velikovsky believed something similar. This is a more extreme position than the plasma cosmology described in the article. Is this about right? ] 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
::*And I found a dozen web sites that say that George Bush is an alien reptile, or worse. But it's quite easy to verifiably find what he actually stands for.
::*I'm not aware of any information indicating Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, nor with Velikovsky.
::*Presumably by the same analogy, Einstein's support of ]'s Earth shifting crust theory, would discredit Einstein's theories?
::*Either way, this attempt to discredit by association, without even verifiable evidence, is a poor substitute for dealing with verifiable sources on plasma cosmology. --] 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:Here's a website that purports to quote Ian Tresman as follows: "Critics of the "Saturn Theory" suggest that there is no mechanism that could circularize the planets' orbits. Annis says that Donald Scott points out the plasma physics could help here, electrical attraction and repulsion could be the answer, which become effective when their plasma sheaths overlap." Did you say that? Regardless of whether we can trust what Ian said about what Annis said about what Donald said, it would seem that Ian is indeed aware of information about Scott's views on the Saturn Theory, aware enough to discuss how Scott defends it against a specific criticism.
:As for discrediting by association, I thought my point was that Scott advocates something a lot weirder than the ] article, so citing him here is perhaps like citing creationists at ] - we refer to creationists as an alternative to the Big Bang, not as support for it. ] 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::*Yes, the text is indeed mine; Scott gives his opinion on the application of plasma physics to the Saturn theory. It says nothing about Scott's view of the Saturn theory. No doubt you could give a scientific opinion on the nature of UFOs; is that going to make you a UFO supporter, or a sympathizer?
::*This association is incredibly desperate. Peratt's going to talk at a society sympathetic to Velikovsky! Scott spoke to people who talk about the Saturn theory!
::*This is purely an attempt to discredit via wishful association: ] ]. Let's deal with verifiable sources. --] 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don Scott is not a ] in these matters. He has no peer reviewed papers on cosmology or plasma cosmology, unlike the other people listed as references. --] 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:*You said that I was POV pushing. Twice. Are you saying that you meant to criticize Scott as a reliable source, and that POV-pushing is not an issue? --] 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:::In my book, you are a confirmed POV-pusher who hopes to insert Don Scott into this encyclopedia in spite of his ], ], and ] positions on the subject in question. --] 16:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::::*Scott's book is about plasma cosmology. This article is about plasma cosmology. How is that POV-pushing? --] 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::*Having already professed your devotion to this particular guru, you now try to insert him into this article. That's POV-pushing. --] 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:55, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPhysics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAstronomy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

"Electric Universe (physics)" redirects here

This section is over a year old, please don't re-open it. Also, avoid psychoanalysis of other editors, that's WP:NPA territory. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

Per policy, there really isn't a lot of choice involved. Either find sources that directly state how "Electric Universe' relates to 'Plasma cosmology', and include an explanation based on such content in the article, or delete the redirect. Unexplained 'redirects' that merely insinuate some sort of connection aren't remotely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. So you're suggesting RfD of the "EU (physics)" redirect? Fine with me. But I've never done one of those, and there seem to be several options (speedy; discussion; etc.). Could you, with your greater experience and understanding of the "per policy" issues, actively initiate the appropriate RfD mechanism? Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably best to leave it for a few days, in case anyone can come up with a relevant source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Relevant? Sure, right from the horse's mouth: "The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology". But nothing on that page is even close to passing as a reliable source. Here's a single line from Forbes: "and so plasma cosmology — rebranded a few decades ago as the electric Universe..." Given how fringe all of this is, that should be sufficient to keep the redirect, no? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, if this target article, P.C., is fringe, shouldn't there be a {{Fringe theories|...}} template at the head of this article? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree that it should. - Parejkoj (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hoo boy. This would take a while to dig up. The short version is that this started out as the "electric universe" concept but quickly got renamed to "plasma cosmology" when scientists rightly pointed out that the universe doesn't work the way its proponents claimed. I remember seeing some of its proponents fervently arguing for it way back in the early 00s... but that's not a reliable source. It might be difficult to actually track down an RS regarding the tie between the two. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Once you have to resort to personal attacks, you lose all credibility to comment in the first place. It’s bullying, which in turn is a sign of insecurity and phobia, conscious or otherwise. Mcnaugha (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
That comment was left over a year ago. Please don't dredge up old issues. Also, your own psychoanalysis of the editor is a personal attack. Don't do that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He also reported that flat galaxy rotation curves were simulated without dark matter.

The tag asks for this sentence to be discussed or clarified, so here goes. Clearly the idea that the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology is not accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus which explains it using dark matter. However, that is not what the sentence is arguing, it is simply stating that according to Peratt the observed flat rotation curves of spherical galaxies is explained by plasma cosmology. This is well documented in the sources already cited in the article. So I removed the "dubious" tag. Hope that helps? Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that's how I read it as well. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Categories: