Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Eric Lerner's criticism 2 Primordial helium abundance 2.1 Apparent inconsistency 3 Deeply troubled with Joshuaschroeder 4 Request for arbitration 5 Lerner's rewrite 6 some questions 7 Force-free currents Illustration removal 8 Plasma cosmology should be described only by advocates? 9 Cygnus radio loop 10 Suggestions 11 First paragraph suggestion 12 Versions of the opening paragraph 12.1 Proposed NPOV version 13 Lerner on how the article should be editted and by whom 14 Cygnus radio loop illustration removal 15 Suggestion 16 Lack of Good Faith 17 Lerner on Wikipedia 18 Allegation of vandalism by Joshuaschroeder 19 Other options 20 POV notice 21 Illustration Update 22 Energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster 23 Cosmic plasma section edits 24 Reverts by Elerner and Reddi 25 RfC on the conduct of two editors 26 stop 27 Dishonest games 28 2005 Tolman surface brightness test 29 POV tag removal

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 Wikipedia, and I don’t have Schroeder’s unlimited time for editing wars, but I can’t see that this sort of vandalism helps Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [into] 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)

Why not, exactly? Jon 02:14, 17 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia it isn't. The goal of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

This is playing with words. By this rationale we should rush off and change the big bang pages to say "proponents of the Big Bang model claim that..." Your bias is shining through your flimsy arguments here. Jon 05:03, 15 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)

Are you incapable of finding one yourself? If so, you should say so, rather than "challenge" everyone else to go rushing around for you. Go look it up yourself, and if necessary report that you can't find one. Stop wasting everyone's time. Jon 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked for one on Abstract search and found no association with the filamentary, rope-like, or Birkeland current nature of the Cygnus loop. Therefore I have removed the image. Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 15 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)

How can you as other to when you don't? JDR

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 Wikipedia 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)

And yet three other editors here, including a leading scientist in the field, are disputing your version. Your paragraph is bollocks, mainly because it is ungainly and does not flow very well. Jon 05:14, 15 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)

Versions of the opening paragraph

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)

Is User:Elerner willfully ignoring my posts here on the talkpage? I do not dispute that plasma is the dominant form of baryonic matter in the universe. Why does he contend that I do? Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 15 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)

Plasma cosmology, like all nonstandard cosmologies, is mentioned in the Big Bang article in the problems issues and features section. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 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)

Such a tactic is called Wikipedia:edit war and is greatly frowned on here. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder, you have conducted edit wars on other articles that you don't think is "right". What should your comment be called? Sincerely, JDR 16:07, 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)

It's a difficult rule to follow when someone is insistently vandalising a page. Jon 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 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)

There are five things established in the introduction I wrote. In order,

• It is a cosmological model based on plasmas.
• Everybody agrees that the universe is made of plasma.
• Plasma cosmology gives plasmas a role in the formation of large-scale structure.
• The big bang cosmology, by contrast, gives plasmas a role only in smaller structures.
• Plasma cosmology is non-standard.

The one sentence about the big bang merely states the contrasting view, which is important for any reader who is familiar with the big bang theory, sympathetic or no. It does not provide any criticism of the model.

As for plasma cosmology being non-standard, everyone agrees on that. It is a simple fact that the big bang is the dominant paradigm, which receives all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of government funding, appointments in universities, etc... Virtually every big bang proponent agrees with this, as do the proponents of non-standard cosmology – including Lerner – who have signed a document (available at [3]) stating "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies." I don't disagree with changing the use of non-standard, if we must, but to ask for an attribution is absurd: it's a fact! –Joke137 02:53, 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.

Thanks for this, Jossi. I put it in, adding one sentence to show the relation between PC and BB: "Unlike big bang cosmology, plasma cosmology hypothesizes a universe without a beginning." However, there is something wrong with the formatting, which I would appreciate if someone could fix without changing the wording.Elerner 03:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the wording above awkward, and it fails to demarcate where plasma cosmology departs from standard astrophysical lore and the big bang cosmology. I have tried to rewrite it again in the hopes of satisfying you. At the very least, don't simply revert because these wars lead to no good. I'm not sure I'm very happy with my version, because calling plasma cosmology "non-standard" seems quite uncontroversial and accurate. It has very few adherents in academic cosmology. –Joke137 04:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the above has a neologism "Plasma cosmologists". Let's avoid this. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that is has few adherents in academy can be stated in the body of the article. I still believe that my proposed version could be a compromise between factions. I leave that to you to discuss. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to Jossi’s compromise, which I accept as modified with the additional sentence, which clearly explains what any reader will see as the outstanding difference between plasma cosmology and the big bang. Once again Joke137’s version attempts to describe the composition of the universe—plasma—as something other than settled fact. This is exactly like an article on evolution starting” Some biologists believe…”.

Uh, no it doesn't. I agree that it is a settled fact. The edit makes this clear. –Joke137 10:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone reading this has to wonder why it is taking huge reams of text to arrive at an article on plasma cosmology. Could it be that the proponents of the big bang have run out of scientific arguments and are reduced to the equivalent of graffiti? So their grad students, like Joke137 and Joshua, spend their idle hours endlessly trying to erase the FACT that the universe is made up of plasma. Just like evolution is a fact, so is that.

Your responses are lacking in basic standards of civilty. How do you know I'm a grad student? I could be a professor emeritus, or a high school student. –Joke137 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're not behaving like a professor emeritus, so it's safe to assume you're not. Jon 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular behavior that you take umbrage to? –Joke137 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in particular, no  :-) Jon 07:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lerner on how the article should be editted and by whom

I again urge those who object to plasma cosmology to state their scientific objections in the form: ”critics of plasma cosmology, however, argue..” Or even ”Proponents of the dominant, orthodox, right-thinking cosmology argue..” That would be OK too. Why don’t you guys put your views in that way? Because you don’t want to admit there are actually different sides to the argument, or what? Please elucidate.Elerner 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm perfectly willing to admit this, and I think both my edits have been more than fair. You're just not giving them a fair shake. –Joke137 11:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have been systematically cut out of the editting process too for reasons that are beyond me. Elerner seems to think that I have decided the universe isn't filled with plasma. Where this belief is coming from is beyond me, but it's beginning to sound a bit tired. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest (in my opionion) that it's because (a) you considered that "the universe is 99% plasma" (or similar) as not relevant (b) your tagging the subject as pseudoscience (c) Your rewording often comes across as producing inaccurate statements (d) You consider accepted astrophysics to be inadmissible (e) Your enthusiasm to qualify and counterpoint many statements. (f) You use of perjorative phrasing, eg. ".. a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates ..", ".. have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion ..", about Alfvén "in 1937, while still believing that the Milky Way galaxy represented the entire extent of the universe". --Iantresman 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

All irrelevent to the actual edits I was talking about. Please stop holding grudges and start editting. Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. You should answer each of the points in turn rather than just try and fob them off as irrelevant. Jon 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

These points have nothing to do with the edits that are currently being considered. Thus they are irrelevant. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You said the reasons why nobody here is taking you seriously any more are beyond you. Iantresman gave you 6 good reasons. They may not be relevant to the current edits, but that is just a another pedantic argument. They apply generally to your overall contribution, and reflect badly on any further contributions you may want to make. See bad faith below, Jon 07:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What you are basically saying is that you have stopped assuming good faith. This is quite problematic. Holding grudges in articles is not appropriate. I don't automatically revert every contribution you or Ian or Reddi makes simply because I've disagreed with you in the past. I'd like a little courtesy extended toward my edits as well. Joshuaschroeder 13:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not at all what I am saying - I do not disagree with every edit you have made either. What I am saying is that you should not be surprised by people not trusting you, according to your edit history. You seem to be trying to evade the truth that Iantresman quite clearly articulated to you above. That's why I tried the Northern Ireland analogy below - if you piss everyone off with your behaviour, don't be surprised if people won't trust you any more. This is why I think you're not acting in good faith. I believe you have the intention of sneaking in the pseudoscience tag when nobody's looking, since you seem to have bags of time, and despite almost everyone else's objections. Wikipedia is a society, and editors have memories of past behaviour. That's all I'm saying - I'm not trying to attack you. just pull your horns in a bit and play a bit nicer, we'll all get on fine and may even start discussing the topic again  :-) Jon 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cygnus radio loop illustration removal

Joshua, you said that you not disagree with any of my points regarding the illustration. Aside from your request for a citation, what was wrong with the image and its caption?

Eric, your comments would be appreciated on the following suggested images and captions, in particular, highlighting any errors or misunderstandings.

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

M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines producing so-called synchrotron radiation. Plasma cosmologists suggests that the electrons are accelerated by double layers in a Birkeland current through a plasma pinch [1] whereas astrophysicists suggest the electrons are accelerated by a supermassive black hole.

Image:Solar-flares-(double).jpg Solar Filaments. Alfvén arged that the filamentary structure seen in the solar corona is due to electric currents whose strength bunch the magnetic fields, produing magenetic ropes or filamentary currents. [2]

--Iantresman 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is because there is no citation. If you can give me a citation that this Cygnus Loop can be adequately compared to a Birkeland current, let's see it. Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

But a citation is not a requirement of an image caption. The first image on the page has no citation. None of the images on the Big Bang article have citations, the image on the Pseudoscience page does not have a citation. And you have not disagreed with any part of the caption. --Iantresman 18:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a requirement. This particular image, though, was included to illustrate a concept in plasma cosmology that is a relatively controversial subject. The items in the Big Bang and pseudoscience pages have references that can be shown. I felt that there was no reference that concured with the image you included. When I asked for one, you couldn't provide it. Therefore this qualifies as original research. Joshuaschroeder 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Cygnus loop does indeed have the charachteristics of a Birkeland current. That is true, whether or not it actually is one. The caption does not say that it is, only that it has the characteristics of a current. Perhaps the caption could be clarified - something like "Although debate continues, some plasma physicists assert that the Cygnus Loop (NGC 6960/95) does indeed contain Birkeland currents." That is actually true. A reference to Peratt's or Alfven's relevant work can be included. Jon 00:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Give that you qualify the illustration about some "debate" which is not documented to exist, I'm not sure then what the utility of this particular illustration is. A possible force-free current? Why do we care if this particular supernova remnant is force-free? What is the context? 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

The current introduction is:

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. Unlike Big Bang cosmology, plasma cosmology hypothesizes a universe without a beginning.

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

May I suggest:

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma makes up the stars and the interstellar medium, and astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are instrumental in the formation of stars, quasars and galactic discs. Plasma cosmology, however, explains the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, from galaxy formation to the cosmic microwave background by invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas. Plasma cosmology asserts the universe has no beginning. By contrast, the big bang model asserts that the formation of structure is dominated by gravitational effects and that universe, as we know it, has existed for only a finite time. Plasma cosmology is considered a non-standard cosmology.

I prefer the above version because

1. It makes it clear that it is widely agreed upon that the (baryonic) universe is composed of plasma and that these effects are important in astrophysics.
2. It eliminates the neologism "plasma cosmologist."
3. It clearly explains the two major aspects of the theory that deviate from conventional astrophysical practice (there is no big bang, electromagnetic forces are an equal partner in structure formation).
4. It eliminates the awkward "for X see Y" construction.

–Joke137 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there are three things to consider:

1. The second sentence could be made clearer as to its applicability to plasma cosmology. Right now it seems a bit non-sequitor.
2. Why are laboratory plasmas considered "fusion power"?
3. Saying that "Plasma cosmology is considered a nonstandard cosmology" is a bit weasely. Perhaps we should consider just calling it a nonstandard cosmological model and be done with it?

--Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. It is supposed to lead in to the third sentence, which describes how standard astrophysical practice differs from plasma cosmology. Otherwise, the danger is to make it sound as if electromagnetic phenomena are unimportant in standard astrophysics.
2. I don't know. I fixed that. It seems like the main page for experimental plasma physics, which is, in practice, nearly the same as fusion power research. It would be nice if there were a better link.
3. Perhaps, but this statement has already caused enough contention that I am happy for it to be a bit weasly.

–Joke137 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I again strongly urge Jossi to do something about Joshua Shroeder and the aptly monickered Joke137. They have no interest in accurate science, but only in pushing their own points of view. They dominate the discussion simply because they seem to have unlimited time to make changes. I tried to introduce a balance of point of view, in the form of “critics say” in the big bang article that they wrote and all my changes were immediately removed with no justification. This shows what little interest they have in NPOV.

Their changes to the first paragraph are aimed solely at denigrating plasma cosmology. The first paragraph simply keeps going back and forth as others replace their nonsense with the compromise paragraph that you crafted. This is just a mess. I think this article should be locked with your intro in place.Elerner 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears we have reached an impasse. I have offered three different possibilities for the intro paragraph, and have not received any serious attempt to address them. I have refrained from personal attacks and have only simply reverted the article once. Yet I have received nothing but vituperative attacks from Eric Lerner. I think I have generally tried to build consensus on these pages (plasma cosmology, non-standard cosmology, etc...), but I don't see how it will happen this time because my concerns are not receiving any kind of response. Are there any alternatives for resolving this dispute? I can't see how a neutral observer would see my paragraph as anything but NPOV. –Joke137 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Joke137's paragraph is far more NPOV than Joshuaschroeder's POVed one ... but still lacks absolute neutrality. Also, especially since Elerner is an "expert" (being a major figure in Plasma cosmology), his view should be given more wieght (though not excessively wieghted) than others (isn't that why there is a tag that articles should be reviewed by experts?). Sincerely, JDR 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., to ask for attribution isn't absurd ... but a citation to attribute sometihing doesn't need to be from a peer-reviewed journal)

Can you give me suggestions for making my paragraph more neutral? I don't agree that Lerner's status as an expert gives his opinion on what is neutral more weight: on the contrary, I think it makes him more likely to be biased. I think his contributions to this page are very much welcome, because we now have a hope of knocking it into better shape. But just as Joshuaschroeder and I are not neutral as "experts" in big bang cosmology, Lerner must recognize that he too is not neutral, and learn the way articles are written on Wikipedia. –Joke137 18:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (Regarding attribution – for what? The statement that the theory is "non-standard"?)

I just don't see what was so heinously wrong with Lerner's original first paragraph. Jon 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, can you comment on whether Neutral Point of View (NPOV) means:

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

--Iantresman 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Good Faith

The main problem here is that one individual, JoshuaSchroeder, is no longer acting in good faith as required. He seems to think that by keeping everyone dancing and scurrying around doing his research for him because he is "not in the mood" to do it himself, he can just tear the article to bits with badly-worded sentences that attempt to dismiss the entire field as pseudoscience.

• Trying to add the pseudoscience tag
• Dismissing Peratt's and others' work as "cursory and comparitive"
• Personal attacks - describing PC scientists, and Eric Lerner in particular, as argumentative and pushy
• Refusing, for elliptical and pedantic reasons, to allow the use of the fact that all visible matter in the universe is plasma in the introductory description of plasma cosmology.
• Continuing all of this nonsense, even though most other editors disagree, including a leading scientist in the field.

This is not what constitutes good faith. If this is some sort of in-joke, it's getting very old. Jon 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Response:

• A case can be made that plasma cosmology represents pseudoscience. For now, the tag is removed from the page.
• The cursory and comparative work in question involved showing pictures of jets and pictures of plasma in the laboratory and simply stating that the pictures looked similar.
• I dispute that there have been any personal attacks. I have pointed out some issues with certain editors, but while Mr. Lerner has been an editor I have not attacked him once (dispite his continued insistence on attacking me). I also consider User:Jonathanischoice to be ironically guilty of making personal attacks against me.
• I never had any objections to including this fact, I only wanted the context made clear.
• The editors who disagree with the Big Bang disagree with me. This I do not deny. However, I have had breakthroughs on occasion. For example at the Electric Universe (concept) page User:Iantresman actually paid me a complement for an edit I made.

--Joshuaschroeder 02:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack. I am trying to point out that with your history, it is difficult to see your actions in the light of good faith. It comes down to human nature. Imagine one is in Northern Ireland. Imagine then that one crash into a Protestant pub, shout at the patrons and throw their beer in their face and telling them they're all a bunch of heathens because they're not Catholic. They're not likely to trust anything else one says after that, no matter how sensible, well-argued or rational. Call it a grudge if you will, but it isn't really - more infuriation, indignation and frustration. Imagine your frustration if we started vandalising the Big Bang page. I have no intention of doing so, and even would consider contributing to it if I had more time. Jon 07:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a bit hyperbolic, to say the least, to compare a Wikipedia article or the scientific community in general to Northern Ireland. Perhaps you should take a vacation to get some perspective. Joshuaschroeder 13:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you need a girlfriend.

Lerner on Wikipedia

Dear Jossi,

The basic problem in the wikipedia model is that it gives power to those with the most time, not with the most knowledge. Joke137 and Joshua Schroeder evidently don’t have much going on in their lives, so can change whatever any one else does back to their version. Eventually people with real lives have to get back to them, as indeed I do. Writing a single encyclopedia article should not be a full time job!

For the plasma cosmology article, pretty clearly they will do with it what they like just because others, like myself, will have other work to do.

In addition, I don’t see how the huge inaccuracies and bias in the big bang article can ever be cleared up. No one reading that article would think there was any real debate about the big bang, or that there are observational contradictions, or that some of what the article says is just flat out wrong, even though the debate is now reported in the press—for example the cover of the July 2 New Scientist, coverage on BBC news, etc. But as soon as I put anything from a “critics say” POV on the article, it immediately disappears.

The same problem on the non-standard cosmology article, which is more or less 100% wrong. But I suspect that any changes to that will disappear instantly too.

Actually, I don’t quite see how this happens, since as I understand it you can’t reinstate the same paragraph more than 3 times. Does this work on deletions too?

Maybe I am asking you for ways to fix the unfixable, and this is just a basic flaw in the wikpedia model—articles will all be terribly inaccurate because they will be changed by those who have the maximum time to change them. If so, the whole enterprise does not seem very useful. But maybe you have ideas on how to fix this.

Regards, EricElerner 01:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Allegation of vandalism by Joshuaschroeder

I am making an allegation of vandalism against Joshuaschroeder, regarding his contributions to this Plasma Cosmology article. This is my second allegation against him in a week. I feel this allegation is not a neutral points of view dispute, but are a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". I offer the following reasons:

• [26 Oct 2005], Joshuaschroeder adds the Pseudoscience category tag to the article.

• The subject may well be a minority interest, but its development over the last 50 odd years has been in peer-reviewed journals [4] [5] [6] [7].

Bad case. These references are (1) a lecture, (2) something in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (possibly conference proceedings), (3) an article in Sky and Telescope (!), and an abstract from conference proceedings. Where are the peer-reviewed journals? --Art Carlson 18:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• In 1989, the IEEE held the "IEEE International Workshop on plasma cosmology", and in 1990, published proceedings in "The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science". In 1995, the IEEE held the "Second IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Cosmology". In 2006, plasma physicist and plasma cosmologist proponent Anthony Peratt will be organising a special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science devoted to Space and Cosmic Plasma (PDF)

• On 16 Nov 2005, Joshuaschroeder writes that "A case can be made that plasma cosmology represents pseudoscience. For now, the tag is removed from the page."

• We can all try and make a case that any subject is pseudoscientific, and probably come up with certain individuals and statements that could fall into this category. But why would want to try and make this case, when as far as I am aware, no other published article even suggests that plasma cosmology is a pseudoscience?
• Why should the Pseudoscience tag be removed "for now"? Does this imply plans to add it later?
• I can see no justification for the addition of the Pseudoscience tag to the article. Its consideration can only be construed as either an extreme point of view, or an attempt to compromise the integrity of the subject and its proponents. Certain Joshuaschroeder has provided no support or evidence for its use.

• Joshuaschroeder's use of perjorative or facetious phrases, such as:

• On supermassive black hole, "... a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates".

Firstly I am aware of no published articles that suggest that any plasma cosmologists would deride supermassive black holes, but the phrase suggests derision by all plasma cosmologists.

• "Some plasma cosmologists have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion..."

I believe this comment is in reference to one peer-reviewed reference that I gave. To suggest that it is cursory is an extreme point of view, but insulting to the author's paper. It also assume there are no other papers on the subject.

• About Alfvén "in 1937, while still believing that the Milky Way galaxy represented the entire extent of the universe"

I have no idea whether Alfvén believed this about the Milky Way or not, though Joshuaschroeder kindly gave a reference to other scientists who may have thought this. But what is its relevance to the article? We wouldn't write about Einstein coming up with his theory of general relativity in an age when it was believed that the Milky Way galaxy represented the entire extent of the universe. The statement is at best unfounded, at worse an smear on Nobel Prize winning scientist, Hannes Alfvén.

• I believe such use of language to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

• Joshuaschroeder's removal of images and captions (A) without prior discussion (three examples) (B) For which he disagrees with the interpretation of the science, when the image is illustrating the subject of the article. As an example of the point from another article on Ghosts there is a picture of a "Reputed ghost of a monk". Obviously the picture is open to interpretation, but it illustrates the point of view of ghost "supporters". I don't think there is any need to remove the picture because there is no scientific evidence, and there is no peer-reviewed citation.

• On the plasma cosmology page, an image and caption showing the Cygus Loop was removed without consultation, because "I don't disagree with any of the points necessarily. I just want a citation". Such references are provided at the bottom of the article, but I don't think it is the responsibility of anyone to teach Joshuaschroeder the subject. Can I remove statements from the Big Bang article and demand a citation for each before putting them back?
• I feel that this stance from Joshuaschroeder compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia, since it become a requirement to satisfy his level of knowledge and interpretation of the subject.
• Just for the record, here are some reference to the Cynus Loop (Veil Nebula) having characteristics of a Birkeland current (force free filament):

• Anthony Peratt in Physics of the Plasma Universe (1992) (mentioned at the bottom of the article in the section on Releated Books): p.48 Section "2.3 Field-Aligned Currents in Astrophysical Plasma": As far as we know, most cosmic low density plasmas also depict a filamentary structure. For example, filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas: [..] (6) In the interstellar medium and in interstellar clouds there is an abundance of filamentary structures [e.g., the Veil nebula (Figure 1.13), the Lagoon nebula, the Orion nebula, and the Crab nebula].
• Hannes Alfvén in Cosmic Plasma (1981) (also mentioned at the bottom of the article in the section on Releated Books): p.16pp Section II.4 Filaments: "Filamentary structures are often observed in cosmic plasmas. [..] .. there are the following filamentary structures, all of which are observed to be associated with, or are likely to be associated with electric currents: (f) In the interstellar medium there is an abundance of filamentary structures (see Figures II.7 and II.8).". And Fig II.7 Shows "The Veil Nebula in Cygnus" and II.8 shows "Details of the Veil Nebula".
• Anthony Peratt in "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets", in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences (1986) p.640 in section II.B. Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma: ".. filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, .. the Veil Nebula .. ".
• And more generally: *Carlqvist, P., et al in "Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk" (1998), in "Astronomy and Astrophysics" v.332, p.L5-L8: "We discuss small-scale, helical, interstellar filaments on the basis of optical observational of an elephant trunk in the Rosette nebula" .. A close inspection of the trunk image reveals that the individual filaments seem to be well separated. In order for the electromagnetic forces not to be too strong and disruptive the electric current paths in the trunk are likely to form a nearly force-free geometry, as is often found in some solar prominences".

• The last quote by plasma cosmologist Per Carlqvist is at odds with Joshuaschroeder's comment on removing a previous image because ".. 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.".

I have given three detailed examples of where I feel that Joshuaschroeder is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia based on his editing style, and which I feel consitutes vandalism. And Comments by plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner also suggest that he feels that "Joshua Schroeder, has devoted a vast amount of time to vandalizing entries on plasma cosmology". --Iantresman 13:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

These allegations are baseless:

• Whether plasma cosmology is a pseudoscience or not, since it is admittedly out of the mainstream, the question arises.
• The phrases I used were not derisive, they were explanatory. There are references to proponents of plasma cosmology deriding supermassive blackholes. See discussion on Wikipeda itself Talk:Black_hole. Perrat's comparison of a jet to plasma was cursory and comparative. This is not derisive at all, merely descriptive. And the paper referenced by Ian did suggest that Alfven believed the Milky Way made up the entire universe. Not unsurprising, necessarily since Hubble's discoveries were only 10 years old at the time. In any case, these issues are no longer relevant to the article as these points are removed for editorial reasons.
• The pictures and captions in question were included by User:Iantresman under dubious circumstances. He claims that they are representative of plasma cosmology. I claim otherwise. Eric Lerner hasn't responded.
• None of the quotes provided show a direct comparison to Birkeland currents as the caption implied. What Ian has shown is that plasma cosmology advocates (like most astrophysicists) recognize a filamentary nature to the Veil Nebula. The rest of his caption is original research. Joshuaschroeder 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is so painful Joshua. You demand peer-reviewed citations and quotes, and then point to an informal discussion on Wikipedia's Big Bang Talk page to support up your claims.

And then when peer-reviewed citations are provided you won't accept them. Birkeland currents = Force-free currents = Filamentary current/structure. So many articles on plasma cosmology highlight this. My eleven year old son was able to comprehend this. Peratt has a section called "Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma" and writes ".. filamentary structures are found in the following cosmic plasmas, .. the Veil Nebula .. ". In the context of the article there is NO OTHER WAY to interpret this. This is NOT a point of view. --Iantresman 16:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is painful. I'm not sure what reference you are making to the Big Bang talk page that I used.

My problem is that filamentary structure != force-free current. If you are teaching your 11-year-old son that every time a filament is seen it is and indication of a force-free current, I'm afraid this is not a good education.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I was referring to your Talk:Black_hole reference. But the point of the argument is still the same.

What point? Advocates of plasma cosmology do deride black holes. In any case, this is a moot point as the sentence isn't even in the article. Joshuaschroeder 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And are you implying that plasma cosmologists do not equate filamentary structure in nebula with force free currents?

--Iantresman 19:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that all filamentary structure is equated with force free currents in plasma cosmology? If so, give a reference. Joshuaschroeder 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't decided if Joshuaschroeder is a hero, a bully or a Zax, but he surely isn't a vandal as defined by this policy paragraph. Vandalism is at least the wrong word.Art LaPella 23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Other options

Would any of you be in favor of an RFC or moderation? I think we could actually make progress, if only we could get people talking about content and not making personal attacks. –Joke137 17:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Alas, we've had an RfC before, and it really just generates more opinions. I have no problems with moderation, if we can find someone who has a adequate scientific knowledge. I would nominate Art Carlson who I believe is a plasma physicist, and as can be seen from his previous posts, is not a plasma cosmology proponent. But I consider him quite reasonable, and able to consider the points being made. --Iantresman 18:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but we would have to get everyone else (JDR, Joshuaschroeder, Elerner and especially, of course, Art) to do it. Maybe we could also all agree to refrain from making any personal comments whatsoever and merely each make a list of the specific problems we see with the article (including, of course, evidence, such as references), and the steps that need to be taken to resolve them. It would also, I think, to avoid commenting directly on each other's points (i.e. it would be useful to use the "Statement by Joke137" format). Then Art could write a summary with specific proposals about what should be done with the article. The goal, of course, would be to get the article into a form that is at least tolerable to everyone, and encourage a discussion which focuses exclusively on content. –Joke137 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be fine with mediation or with Art rewriting the article. The RfC is only the first step of mediation and it wasn't phrased as much as a call for outside help as it was to chatise my involvement with edits, it seems. Joshuaschroeder 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a rewrite. That is not the same as mediation. I see mediation as a process whereby someone assess whether any changes are necessary to the existing article (added afterwards: and mediates any proposed changes) --Iantresman 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding personal comments, I have not made an ad hominem attacks, and have highlighted on a point by point basis, my problems. All of the comments are either justified or not, they are not points of view. If it turns out that the majority of comments are upheld, AND they belong to one person, then the inference is necessary. A mediator would help identify whether such comments are justified. --Iantresman 19:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite will not be necessary. However, substantial editing probably will. And I would like to see a section about the very large scale structure of the universe, as how the plasma cosmology deals with issues of isotropy and homogeneity, as well as singularities and general relativity. This is something which needs to be explained, as I mentioned above. In Peebles' book (Principles of physical cosmology) there is some criticism of this, which ought to be included.

As for attacks, let's forget about it. No good will come of discussing this, as the failure of the RfC and RfA have shown. People are tossing around accusations, calling each other vandals. It is not helpful. In the current impasse, the discussion of content (such as the figures that keep disappearing and coming back) is also not making much progress, so let's try something new. –Joke137 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

POV notice

This article as it currenlty stands states some very controversial things as fact and fails to state other points. The article as it currently stands paints the view of standard cosmology as ignoring plasma. This is untrue. It also claims the Big Bang theory is contradicted by observational evidence. This is also untrue. The article's POV needs to be addressed. Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think you should just wade in and change it, as your writing style is too POV in the opposite direction considering your editing history and behaviour, as both Iantresman and I have tried to point out. May I suggest that you discuss your edits here BEFORE you add them to get some form of consensus first. You are the cause of this voluminous talk page, whether you choose to accept that as fact or not. Joke137 at least is willing to discuss and reach consensus. You seem only interested in labelling this article as pseudoscience and obstructing others' edits. Jon 00:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the figure should be just put back in every time Joshua takes it out. Ditto with changes to the text, which is fine as is. The figure shows the helical filaments characteristic of force-free configurations. Joshua’s stupid game of trying to get the pseudo science label back on shows that he is not interested in any serious debate . He is not worth replying to.Elerner 00:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a reply to my comment? Do you have a justification for your unrelated suggestions other than a personal attack on me? Do you have any evidence that I am "trying to get the pseudo science label back on"? Joshuaschroeder 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt at placing non-scientific theories with scientific theories (explained in the BB talk page) is plain evidence. JDR

I think it a fair and reasonable assumption to make, given your POV which can be determined from your edit history. Jon 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll it's ironic then that you replied to me, isn't it? Joshuaschroeder 13:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I was talking about the pseudoscience tag. Jon 05:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have begun to try to make the article a bit more NPOV as it seems that the other editors are otherwise occupied. I have only worked on the first section so far. My major changes were:

1. Removing and rewriting weasel words.
2. Making it clear that it is the POV of the plasma cosmology advocates that the big bang requires "new physics". This is a controversial statement.
3. Removing mention of "maturity" in models. Unless someone has a way to measure "maturity", I think it best we stick to simple descriptions.
4. Making it clear that the proponents are the ones proposing the theory. Perrat, Lerner, etc. should take credit for their work to describe the universe in plasma cosmology. Since the group advocating it is so small, it's hard to say that there is a consensus definition of the subject even. (This perhaps should be reported).

Thanks, Joshuaschroeder 02:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Do any of the current contributors think the POV notice is still necessary? On exactly which points is there still a POV controversy? --Art Carlson 16:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Illustration Update

Concerning the image of the Cygnus Loop that I added above, it seems that Eric confirms that a far as he is concerned as a plasma cosmologist, "The figure shows the helical filaments characteristic of force-free configurations". Whether it does or does not is irrelevant, the image illustrates the plasma cosmologist view.

My understanding, that this is way plasma cosmologists interpret the images appears to be upheld. Again, whether the images are actually what is proposed, is irrelevant. The caption was never presented as a fact, but as a plasma cosmologist viewpoint. That seems reasonable.

I've just had the following email through from Anthony Peratt, who I had asked to clarify some points (my text in bold):

To: Ian Tresman <########@knowledge.co.uk> From: "Anthony L. Peratt" <#######@lanl.gov Subject: Re: Birkeland currents = Filamentary nebula? I am involved in a discussion on plasma cosmology and Birkeland currents, and would like to clarify a couple of points which I may then attribute to you and post to the discussion page at Talk:Plasma_cosmology about an article on Plasma cosmology written mainly by Eric Lerner at Plasma_cosmology. I don't need detailed replies. Do I understand the following: 1. You would consider yourself to be a plasmas cosmologist, yes, as well as a plasma physicist and space plasma physicist. and the following points would be considered representatives of plasma cosmology: 2. The filamentary structure of nebulae, such as the Rosette nebula, and, the Cynus Loop in the Veil nebula, are actually Birkeland currents, ie. force-free currents? yes 3. This is not just a visual similarity, but a suggestion supported by peer-reviewed papers, that filaments in Nebulae really are Birkeland currents? yes 4. Force-free filamentary Birkeland currents seen in nebulae, are similar to those found in the Solar corona, but scaled in size. yes 5. Regarding astronomical jets such as M87, "Their glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines producing so-called synchrotron radiation. Plasma cosmologists suggests that the electrons are accelerated by double layers in a Birkeland current through a a non-homogenous magnetic field in a plasma pinch"? Read carefully my book. 'Jets' were invented circa 1917 to describe the feature seen in M87. It is impossible to contain a real jet of plasma without a strong axial magnetic field. The 'jet' is seen in synchrotron light, it is a plasma, not a fluid. It's 'knots', observed since about 1917 are not moving. The so-called 'jet' is actually a sheet of plasma squeezed by the magnetic field of two Birkeland currents pointed at us (most plasma filaments are not pointed at us). The electrons in the sheet are propagating towards us, the reason we see the synchrotron light, not from some uncontained relativistic fluid shooting out the sides transverse to us from say, a 'black hole'. Jets and black holes are non-existent.

--Iantresman 18:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the interview, Ian. I have learned something valuable: Perrat believes that both jets and blackholes are "non-existent". A peculiar conceit considering that both of these phenomena are generalized descriptions. It is more of an objection to terminology than it is to science, it would seem. Perhaps Art Carlson can shed some light on why these certain plasma physicists like to deride terms rater than concepts.

In any case, this kind of advocacy puts him in a very fringe group of scientists with Lerner and the rest. The evidence is mounting for the necessity for inclusion of many more qualifications of the article. People need to be made aware that this is not representative of mainstream science and it doesn't seem to be that there is much more to the criticisms than argumentative posturing. I'll leave it to consensus to decide exactly how this should be reported in the article.

Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of clarification of plasma cosmology as a research program from Perrat's responses. Perhaps because plasma cosmology doesn't represent actual research. Perrat and others seem to spend more time dealing with other issues rather than pooh-poohing the Big Bang. Of course, the article as it now stands claims that this is part of a governmental conspiracy, which we need to look into.

Perrat's "yes" responses seem to indicate a comfortability with the subjects Ian brings up but they don't address the fundamental definitional isseu we are having of what qualifies as "cosmology". Nor does it seem that we have any reason to take Perrat's thinking as justification for a general article such as this. He is an advocate of plasma cosmology, but not a guru. If it is true that this kind of "cosmology" relies on worrying about jets and the solar corona, then it will have to be reported that it isn't "cosmology" in the definitional sense.

Joshuaschroeder 02:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, this is not a "fringe" scince .... as the page http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html at Los Alamos National Laboratory is one example ... your opinion and POV is not inaccord with mainstream science. JDR

Wow, careful with all that vitriol you're carrying around, it's quite toxic. Jon 06:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We are in good company out here on the fringe since Albert Einstein was one of the scientists who argued that black holes could not exist in nature. According to his theory of GR, it would take an infinite amount of time, as observed by a distant observer, for a black hole to form. Therefore, since no single object can have an infinite age (regardless of the age of the universe) black holes can’t exist, only collapsed objects which are near to forming an event horizon, but never do. He expressed this view in a number of published papers and never changed it. It is a straight-forward result of his equations.Elerner 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Event horizon semantics. Einstein was simply making the true statement that gravitational time dilation prevents the observation of the creation of a black hole. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua:

• Again you used the term 'deride'.

Since Peratt's statement was not mocking by any stretch of the imagination, I take this as a personal interpretation, which has no place in a scholarly article.

• 'Fringe' group, rather than 'minority' group, again one term has a slightly perjorative use, which has no place in a scholarly article.
• "People need to be made aware that this is not representative of mainstream science.".

Yes, we already mention that, but to push it as important is a very weak argument. McCarthy did the same calling everyone a communist.

• "Perhaps because plasma cosmology doesn't represent actual research."

I can't believe you wrote that, despite (a) the article noting the original research by Birkeland, Alfvén (b) all the published peer-reviewed articles (c) Plasma cosmology is based on empirical research

Since you are better into this subject than I am, could you maybe list the top peer-reviewed articles published in, say, the last twenty years? --Art Carlson 20:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The field is quite small, but here are some to look at:

• IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol PS-14, No.6, 1986 (Special Issue on Plasma Cosmology) Over 20 articles, some on cosmology, many on plasma astrophysics relevant to cosmology
• IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol PS-20, No.6, 1992 (Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma) Selected articles relevant to cosmology
• Cosmology in the plasma universe: an introductory exposition, Alfven, H.O.G.; Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb. 1990 Page(s):5 - 10
• Electrodynamics of cosmical plasmas -- some basic aspects of cosmological importance, Falthammar, C.-G.; Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb. 1990 Page(s):11 - 17
• Cosmology: myth or science? Alfven, H.O.G.; Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on; Volume 20, Issue 6, Dec. 1992 Page(s):590 - 600
• Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang, Lerner, E.J.; Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, Volume 31, Issue 6, Part 1, Dec. 2003 Page(s):1268 - 1275
• Plasma astrophysics and cosmology; Kluwer, 1995 (Book) containing IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology : 2 : 1993

--Iantresman 23:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are all the papers in TPS peer reviewed, or are conference proceedings sometimes published without peer review? --Art Carlson 17:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society Conference Policy Committee (PDF) wrote: "A Conference Record typically contains complete manuscripts and/or abstracts of all papers presented at the conference. The material is published as submitted by the author, without peer review;" (my emphasis). They also write: "A Conference Transactions Issue is an issue of an IEEE Transactions (e.g., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science or Transactions on Plasma Science) containing papers presented at the conference. Typically authors are permitted/encouraged to submit manuscripts of their conference papers to the editor of the Conference Transactions Issue. To be printed in the issue, papers must satisfy the acceptance criteria of the Transactions, and must undergo a peer review process. " (my emphasis)

Do I understand you correctly to be verifying that the first six articles are indeed peer reviewed, and that the book is probably not? --Art Carlson 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't confirm it one way or the other, though the publisher, Kluwer, are quite a reputable publisher who I am sure has a suitable technical editors acting as peers. --Iantresman 21:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I should also mention several additional Special issues of IEEE Transaction on Space and Cosmic Plasma:

• Apr 1989 Vol 17 No 2
• Feb 1990 Vol 18 No 1
• Dec 2000 Vol 28 No 6 (Space weather)
• Dec 2003 Vol 31 No 6

And a special issue of:

• Aug 1988: Laser and Particle Beams, Vol 6 Part 3 (Special Issue on Particle Beams and Basic Phenomena in the Plasma Universe)

--Iantresman 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• "..governmental conspiracy, which we need to look into."

Please do, and take a very long time.

• what qualifies as "cosmology".

You have your definition, give people the respect to have theirs.

• "Nor does it seem that we have any reason to take Perrat's thinking as justification for a general article such as this."

We don't know what Peratt is thinking. The rest of us read his articles and books.

• "He is an advocate of plasma cosmology, but not a guru."

What a strange thing to write.

Joshua, with a post-graduate education, you are obviously a smart guy. Your knowledge of astronomy and mainstream science is undoubtedly far in excess of mine. As anyone with a decent education, you have an obligation and responsibility to educate people, enlighten them, interest them, and demonstrate the impartiality and process of the scientific method. I feel that your contributions come across as un-generous. No-one is disputing that plasma cosmology is not mainstream, not as well researched as standard cosmology, hasn't got all the answers, and comes across as hightly contentious. But your passion for writing and interest in science should be able to mention all that, fairly, and respectfully, and in the same style that you would like to see an article on, say, standard cosmology. In years to come, people will look back at our contributions to Wikipedia, and will judge whether those standards have been met. If your point of view turns out to be correct, then hopefully you'll be able to hold your head high and boast that there were some good ideas, and play down any triumphalism. But if your point of view turns out to be incorrect, then you're going to have some backtracking to do. Science is not a competitition, and it does not necessarily promote just one truth. But of course you know that, and I'm sure you can see my point of view, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. --Iantresman 13:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Ian. --Joshuaschroeder 18:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster

The article states the following:

For example, in the Local Supercluster of galaxies, the magnetic field is at least 0.3 microgauss over a volume 10 Mpc in radius, so the energy density of the magnetic field exceeds the energy density of the gravitational field by at least an order of magnitude.

I cannot reproduce this. 0.3 microgauss corresponds to an energy density of approximately 4 x 10^{-15 erg cm-3. Given that u = B2/(8 pi). The gravitational energy density for the local supercluster with a characteristic radius of 10 Mpc = 3 x 1025 cm, a mass of 1015 solar masses = 2 x 1048 g, and G = 7 x 10-8 in cgs yields an energy density of 5 x 10-14 erg cm-3. Given that u = GM2/(8 pi R4). Looks like the gravitational energy density is higher than the magnetic energy density by nearly an order of magnitude.}

^{--Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)}

^{The problem is with your mass estimate. If it were valid, we would expect velocity dispersion of 300-600 km/s in the Local Supercluster. But what is observed is around 75 km/s. See Whiting, astro-ph/0412090. A much better mass estimate is 10^14 solar masses, which drops the gravitational energy density by a factor of 100.Elerner 02:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)}

^{The local supercluster isn't virialized, so you need to take infall field velocities separate from cluster velocities to get an accurate result. Whiting is trying to find a trace for dark matter densities and seems to find a bias not seen in other analyses. The mass of the local supercluster can be roughly determined by looking at the component of the peculiar velocity of our Local Group toward Virgo which is approximately 200 km/sec, a value which yields 1015 solar masses (See [8]). --Joshuaschroeder 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)}

It only yields 10¹⁵ M if the motion is due only to gravity. That is the whole point. Jon 02:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what Mr. Lerner was implying above as far as I can ascertain. --Joshuaschroeder 04:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

as far as I can ascertain - I rest my case Jon 04:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to tell me then what the reference to Whiting's work was supposed to indicate. --Joshuaschroeder 05:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, the error in your calculation of gravitational energy is not controversial, it is arithmetic. A mass of 10^15 solar masses 10 Mpc in radius acting on matter over a 14 Gyr time span will generate velocities of the order of 600km/sec. The reference cited above shows that the observed average velocities in the supercluster are 75 km/sec at most—an order of magnitude less. Therefore the mass is also a factor of ten less than your calculations. This is not graduate physics, it is high-school physics and you would flunk. Stop your vandalism! This is the last warning. I will get you banned from this article otherwise.Elerner 18:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Velocities on the order of 600 km/sec in a virialized mass. The local supercluster is not virialized.
2. Velocities measured in the paper you cite are local peculiar velocities and are meant to be made as tracers of the local gravitational field and hopefully give some idea of they mass distribution. Claiming that the average velocities in superclusters are 75 km/sec is just plain incorrect. The agreed upon velocity from Binney & Tremaine, for example, is on the order of 100s of km/sec as required by your correct calculation above. It is you who are using the wrong velocities, it is not my physics.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a peer reviewed paper which is in concordance with my estimate for the mass of the supercluster: [9]. -Joshuaschroeder 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that my original and still correct paragraph refers to the local Supercluster “within 10 Mpc”. I assumed that it was clear that meant “within 10 Mpc of us”. I could add that phrase. In this part of the supercluster, typical velocities are 75 km/s and magnetic field is around 0.3 microgauss. If you look at a much denser part of the supercluster filament (which extends very far in both directions and joins with other filaments in the cosmic web), such as around the Virgo cluster (20 Mpc away from us), you get different numbers. More mass, higher velocities and the magnetic field is about 1.5 microgauss (see Astronomical Journal vol. 99, Feb. 1990, p. 459-462.) In that part of the supercluster, magnetic field strength is still about 2-3 times as much as gravity. If you focus still closer on the cluster, obviously you will reach the point where gravity exceeds magnetism. The process described in the article shows how gravitationally-dominated objects form as “beads on a string” of the magnetically-dominated filaments, and new filaments form within those objects on as smaller scale.Elerner

If you want to actually get educated about plasma cosmology, that would be one thing. But your constant vandalism, based on your having some sort of program that automatically reverts edits, is another. After the holiday, we’ll see about getting you banned.Elerner 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph Art Carlson inserted has several errors. It implies that the relative strengths of magnetic and gravitational fields are a matter of plasma cosmology assertions, while it is a matter of observation. It also for some reason changes the dimensions of the volume involved from 10 Mpc to 15 Mpc and eliminates the actual strength of the field. Other wise, I made relatively minor edits.Elerner 04:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (This last paragraph was copied from #Dishonest games so that all contributions to the discussion of this topic can be found in one place. --Art Carlson 18:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

Your first comment on assertions vs. observations can only refer to the sentence:

While gravity becomes more important at larger scales, plasma cosmology advocates claim that electromagnetic forces are rarely negligible, that they indeed often dominate over gravitational forces in cosmological processes.

I believe we can sort out what the observations of energy density are. The relative energy density of magnetic and gravitational fields, however, does not automatically imply anything about the relative strength of gravitational and magnetic forces. Thus your formulation, "electromagnetic forces are rarely negligible and often dominate cosmic processes", is the POV of plasma cosmologists, not a question that is easy to answer objectively and unambiguously.

For the energy densities, Joshuaschroeder gave these formulas, which you didn't challenge:

u_mag = B²/(8 pi)

u_grav = GM²/(8 pi R⁴)

If we don't worry about the numerical factors and express the mass in terms of the mass density ρ~MR^-3, the ratio of magnetic to gravitational energy density is

u_mag/u_grav ~ (B/ρR)²

Assuming that B and ρ can be taken as constant, this equation is the basis of the claim that "gravity becomes more important at larger scales". This can best be expressed quantitatively by giving the radius at which the two energy densities are equal. I thought that you and Joshua agreed on the density and were only getting different numbers because you were using different radii, but I made a mistake in my calculation. If you think that the gravitational energy density is an order of magnitude smaller using 10 Mpc, then the radius at which they are equal should be about 30 Mpc (10 Mpc X sqrt(10)). Joshua's number should yield about 7 Mpc (20 Mpc / sqrt(10)). (I think.) We might want to either get the right number based on the peer-reviewed literature, or we might want to express the uncertainty, but I don't think the difference is very important for our purposes here, just as I don't think our readers care about the absolute value of the magnetic field involved. Could we maybe say, "For example, in the Local Supercluster of galaxies, for radii less than roughly 20 Mpc the magnetic field energy density exceeds the gravitational energy density."?

--Art Carlson 19:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither of your assumptions about B and ρ is valid. B^2/ρ tends to be constant as does rρ. Since Alfven velocities in filaments tend to be about 1,000 km/sec, and rρ converges on 1.6x10^-5 gm/cm^2, one could conclude that magnetic fields dominant up to scales of about 3 Gpc. However, reality is more complex, as there are gravitationally bound objects at all scales where gravity is stronger, while there are filaments at all scales that we can currently observe where magnetic field dominate.Elerner 03:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was using ρ to refer to mass density, but if nρ has units of mass per area, I guess you are talking about the Larmor radius? What do you mean by np, the proton number density? --Art Carlson 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, typo, now corrected: referring to product of density and radius.Elerner 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So u_mag/u_grav ~ (B/ρR)² ~ (B²/ρ)(Rρ)^-1(R)^-1. If the ratio is 10 at R = 10 Mpc, then it should be unity at R = 100 Mpc, not 3 Gpc. What's wrong here? --Art Carlson 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

First, the article says correctly ”at least an order of magnitude”. Actually, given a mass of 10^14 solar masses, the ratio is about 28. Second, the filament is already somewhat gravitationally contracted, which decreases the ratio below the “uncontracted” trend line by another factor of 6.6. So combine those factors and you get up to 1.8Gpc.Elerner 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cosmic plasma section edits

With the seeming success of my last edit, I have ventured into the next section. Here are the major changes I made:

1. Removal of the controversial assertion that the magnetic field energy density is larger than the graviational energy density. I think this may ultimately come down to an argument over virialization and dark matter (which are both things that plasma cosmology takes umbrage to.) In any case, I don't see any reason why we can't come to an editorial agreement on this point, but I don't like to see what I consider errors to be kept in Wikipedia. We can make this subject to the discussion above.
2. Rewording weasel phrasing "are crucial in understanding the cosmos" and rewrote it "have figured prominately in subsequent developments of plasma cosmology". I think that's what the author meant anyway since there are other features of plasma that are important (or maybe even crucial) in understanding the cosmos as well.
3. Explicitly stating what these phenomena are so that the reader doesn't have to search too hard in the article.
4. Changing the wording of the double layer work from: "This phenomenon, which was first observed in the laboratory, has allowed Alfvén to propose a theory of cosmic rays." to the more precise: "This phenomenon, which was first observed in the laboratory, was suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays." There are many different mechanisms for the generation of cosmic rays suggested, and this is certainly one possibility.
5. Creation of the new force-free filament section which is really where plasma cosmology diverges from standard cosmology, as far as I can see. This includes the following changes:
   1. "A hierarchy of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, stars and planets is thus formed." is changed to simply "A hierarchy of structure is thus formed." The argument of plasma cosmology that these processes account for the hierarchical structure of the cosmos by themselves is indeed controversial, while the fact that plasma processes can allow for hierarchical structure is not controversial.
   2. Magentic braking is indeed used to explain angular momentum transfer in accretion and structure formation. It isn't the only process which can account for it though, and so I made that clear that it was one possible mechanism that could do the trick rather than being "critical to the process of gravitational collapse, because they act to transfer angular momentum from the contracting clump."
   3. In the same vein, "Without such magnetic breaking, the formation of galaxies and stars would be impossible as centrifugal force would prevent contraction." was changed to "Without a process to transfer angular momentum, the formation of galaxies and stars would be impossible as centrifugal forces would prevent contraction."
   4. Added more of what was specific to plasma cosmology, namely that it advocates these processes as the crucial processes for structure formation.

Please leave comments here.

Thanks,

--Joshuaschroeder 22:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

These errors have been discussed to death.(see above) They will be removed if they are re-inserted. Elerner 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

They really haven't been discussed at all. Please refer to them for each point. Thanks. --Joshuaschroeder 14:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Should Joshuaschroeder's version prove victorious, change "prominately" to "prominently". Art LaPella 06:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone looks at this discussion or the history page, it is clear that the problem is two individuals, Joshua and Joke, who actually know almost nothing about this subject, (although pretending to know a lot) and who dominate the revisions by having unlimited spare time on their hands. I have reverted to the scientifically correct version of this article. I suggest that, as Jossi says, we impose the “wisdom of crowds” and that anyone who respects scientific integrity just revert this article to my last reversion whenever they have time.Elerner 17:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to the above points. This kind of generalized criticism doesn't serve the editorial process. Joshuaschroeder 18:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see Joshua and Joke as a problem. In particular, in this section Joshua has provided convincing (or at the very least prima facie) arguments for his edits. Even if there are counter arguments to some of these points elsewhere in the discussion pages, it would be courteous and constructive to restate them here. --Art Carlson 20:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua and Joke are editing in a BB POV ... not a NPOV. Joshua has been offensive and unconstructive for some time now (this section after a long line of not compromising and name calling) ... will the trolling stop? Mabey after Thanksgiving ... as for now the points are elsewhere in the discussion pages. I doubt that it would be constructive to further argue with Joshua (and, to a lesser extent, the other BB apologists) ... mabey you Art can restate them ( ... as I do not want condone the trolling by a response). JDR (PS., I'll think of this over Thanksgiving ... Happy Thanksgiving all)

(Note that Elerner has re-engaged in the discussion of this point with Joshuaschroeder. See the latter portion of #Energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster. --Art Carlson 08:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC))

Reverts by Elerner and Reddi

Can either editor please respond to my points in the above section? Thank you. --Joshuaschroeder 19:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If either editor still feels a need to revert to the pro-plasma cosmology version, then please use the November 19 version marked Art LaPella (proofreading), assuming you don't object to my spelling corrections etc. Art LaPella 01:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatley this aspect of cosmology is beyond my knowledge, so I am unable to comment. --Iantresman 08:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC on the conduct of two editors

Due to the continued lack of engagement by two editors of this article there are now RfCs for both of them:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reddi
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner

Please read these and comment. --Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Draining. You just don't get it. I don't know why I am wasting my breath yet again - probably in the dim yet persistent hope that you are perhaps capable of reason. I gave up a few days ago when you ranted incoherently about Peratt's stance on black holes. Looks like Elerner, Iantresman and Reddi have given up too. They are most likely not engaging you because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of rational debate. This is not a personal attack, I'm just pointing out the well-documented evidence. Like I tried to say before, if you infuriate people, you can't complain when they ignore you or don't respect you. Your behaviour here is not that of a rational scientist, but of a religious crusader. You have taken a scientific debate and turned it into some sort of inquisition. I suspect we've all given up for a while in the hope you'll eventually go find something else to do.

I suggest a new game: I have the last word. Jon 02:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Jon, though I may disagree with you, what I've found is that at least you and Ian will engage me on the talkpage. The kind of posturing being engaged by Reddi at this point is beyond anything you've done. --Joshuaschroeder 04:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

stop

I have decided to stop editing for the time being. Basically, I'm tired of arguing on the internet, and feel like there are more productive outlets for my energy. Have fun, and I hope you manage to resolve this mess. –Joke137 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dishonest games

After a fine Thanksgiving with family, I find it difficult to understand the games people are playing here. Art Carlson first takes my reply to Joshua—my twelfth reply or so to Joshua—and moves it so no one thinks it exists. Then, after hiding my reply, he erases my changes, with the excuse that I have not replied to Joshua! Such dishonest games are pretty appalling and have nothing to do with scientific integrity.Elerner 03:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

These are the replies to Joshua's latest point that Carlson does not want people to see(in addition to many other replies):

Note that the following comments are duplicates of Lerner's comments in #Energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster, but that the discussion and criticism of these comments by others have been deleted. Please post further contributions in that section to maintain the context. --Art Carlson 14:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is with your mass estimate. If it were valid, we would expect velocity dispersion of 300-600 km/s in the Local Supercluster. But what is observed is around 75 km/s. See Whiting, astro-ph/0412090. A much better mass estimate is 10^14 solar masses, which drops the gravitational energy density by a factor of 100.Elerner 02:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, the error in your calculation of gravitational energy is not controversial, it is arithmetic. A mass of 10^15 solar masses 10 Mpc in radius acting on matter over a 14 Gyr time span will generate velocities of the order of 600km/sec. The reference cited above shows that the observed average velocities in the supercluster are 75 km/sec at most—an order of magnitude less. Therefore the mass is also a factor of ten less than your calculations. This is not graduate physics, it is high-school physics and you would flunk. Stop your vandalism! This is the last warning. I will get you banned from this article otherwise.Elerner 18:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that my original and still correct paragraph refers to the local Supercluster “within 10 Mpc”. I assumed that it was clear that meant “within 10 Mpc of us”. I could add that phrase. In this part of the supercluster, typical velocities are 75 km/s and magnetic field is around 0.3 microgauss. If you look at a much denser part of the supercluster filament (which extends very far in both directions and joins with other filaments in the cosmic web), such as around the Virgo cluster (20 Mpc away from us), you get different numbers. More mass, higher velocities and the magnetic field is about 1.5 microgauss (see Astronomical Journal vol. 99, Feb. 1990, p. 459-462.) In that part of the supercluster, magnetic field strength is still about 2-3 times as much as gravity. If you focus still closer on the cluster, obviously you will reach the point where gravity exceeds magnetism. The process described in the article shows how gravitationally-dominated objects form as “beads on a string” of the magnetically-dominated filaments, and new filaments form within those objects on as smaller scale.Elerner

If you want to actually get educated about plasma cosmology, that would be one thing. But your constant vandalism, based on your having some sort of program that automatically reverts edits, is another. After the holiday, we’ll see about getting you banned.Elerner 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

End of duplicated comments

FYI, it seems that Joshuaschroeder decided to resign from Wikipedia and his user page deleted by his request. [10]. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder: It appears that Joshua Schroeder was subjected to a 24-hour ban from another admin for his alledged Point of View activities in another article. See Wikipedia:Account suspensions. Subsquently he appears to have changed his username from Joshuaschroeder to ScienceApologist in an attempt to dissociate his name from his posts. It was noted by the banning admin that "He appears determined to keep out of Wikipedia any information related to POVs which he disagrees with"

Of course I wouldn't be surprised to see some anonymous contributions from him, or under a different Username. His style should not be too difficult to identify. --Iantresman 08:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the fact that Eds block was improper and swiftly undone. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Account_suspensions#User:Joshuaschroeder William M. Connolley 13:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).

It seems that someone else brought this up, and the Adminstrator in question says that "I check with other admins / MedCom members - and have even asked arbcom members about this. I can show you the IRC logs.". In other words, his decision was taken in consultation, which would have been the proper thing to do. --Iantresman 13:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph Art Carlson inserted has several errors. It implies that the relative strengths of magnetic and gravitational fields are a matter of plasma cosmology assertions, while it is a matter of observation. It also for some reason changes the dimensions of the volume involved from 10 Mpc to 15 Mpc and eliminates the actual strength of the field. Other wise, I made relatively minor edits.Elerner 04:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For the complete discussion on the energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster, including my reply to the paragraph from Elerner above, please see #Energy density of magnetic fields in the local supercluster. --Art Carlson 18:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am correcting Carlson's latest edits, repeating an earlier remark above:

Just because you say something does not make it true. There’s also reality. My paper was peer-reviewed as part of the proceedings. It is a requirement of all American Institute of Physics proceedings.

Also replied on magnetic energy--above.Elerner 03:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Eric Lerner, it occurs to me that there may be a technical reason for your vehement response to my moving your contribution. As a relatively new Wikipedian, when you read the Talk page you probably just call it up and read it. Seems natural. What I do is to look at the history and call up the difference between the current version and the last version I read. That way I am sure of seeing new contributions even if they have not been added to the end of the file. If you are not aware of this way of doing things, then moving a contribution from the end to another section would seem like hiding it. --Art Carlson 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the "disputed POV tag", since no one has said what specifcally is still not NPOV.Elerner 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

2005 Tolman surface brightness test

Eric, why don't you mention the Malmquist bias in your paper? --ScienceApologist 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, there is no Malmquist bias in the comparison pairs of samples. I compare samples that have the same absolute luminosity. They have the same minimum physical-size cutoff, which depends on the model being tested. In all the samples I make sure that low-surface brightness cutoffs are not relevant: the distribution tails off before the cutoffs are reached.

But the conclusion of all this is that the observed surface brightness is constant, as predicted by the non-expanding universe hypothesis. There is a flat contradiction to the Big Bang prediction of (z+1)^-3.Elerner 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there is a statistical difference between the samples at low redshift and those at high redshift -- that is you will find more galaxies of higher absolute luminosity at high redshift than at low redshift. What it looks like you've done is compared two statisically different samples. More than this your own graphs seem to indicate a very poor correlation between absolute magnitude and surface brightness, so your pairing based on the former seems suspect. How do you explain Lubin and Sandage's paper results where they seem to be much more careful than you about their sample selection and their assumptions about distances ([11])? --ScienceApologist 22:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have still not read the paper or you would, first, see that there are no statistical differences between the sample pairs other than thier redshifts. You also have seen the answer to your second question in the paper itself:

"This conclusion contradicts the earlier work of Lubin and Sandage. However, there are many limitations of that earlier work as compared with this one. Lubin and Sandage did not compare galaxies observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths at low and high redshift as this study does. Instead they used a very involved evolutionary k-correction scheme, with many adjustable assumptions and parameters, to “correct” observed high-z surface brightness. This process introduced unknown and possibly large errors into the calculation. In addition the samples were very small and the range of redshifts, up to 0.9, much smaller than that of the present study (up to 6)."

Please stop commenting on the paper until you have read the whole thing.Elerner 04:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised by your first comment as you didn't address my questions on the samples themselves. I was, frankly, asking for clarification on your position of Lubin and Sandage since your criticism of k-correction and the use of Bolometric luminosities as opposed to your assumption about an equivalent spectrum for galaxies of the same absolute magnitude at different epochs seems a different perspective to me. Perhaps we should take this off-line though, as these are not supposed to be chat pages. Would you be willing for me to continue the discussion with you over e-mail? --ScienceApologist 14:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should continue your discussion right here, it's called a 'talk' page.... and since your talking about the subject, why not just keep it up in plan view? 208.54.95.1

I'm willing to keep it here, but it looks like Mr. Lerner has decided to stop discussing this for the time being. I'm very curious as to why Mr. Lerner thinks a comparison of "at-galaxy" wavelengths is better than the well known astronomical technique of the k-correction. However, he then goes ahead an "reinvents" k-correction for the UV case and ends up arguing that the galaxies are too bright for their UV-britches though he neither parametrizes his uncertainty in this regard nor does he try to make estimates of the process differences required if galaxies really undergo evolution. Lerner dismisses the idea of bright UV flux in distant galaxies not by proposing models or even numerical estimates for such, but rather simply by comparing high-redshift galaxies to dusty contemporary galaxies. He even goes on to make what I can only describe as an audacious claim: that if even one galaxy has more than the maximum UV-flux allowed then the expanding universe is dismissed. This is assumes that the theory of maximum UV flux for a galaxy outweighs the observations of an expanding universe. What is more, it assumes that all UV flux is due to stars when we know that many of these galaxies will have AGN-cores that outshine their stellar flux by many magnitudes (that's the definition of a quasar). After all, due to the Malmquist bias, we're likely to see such things in part. --ScienceApologist 08:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag removal

I've removed the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) tag. I think that essentially the page is OK. It's acknowledged that the subject is controversial, but I don't think that is reason to add the tag over quibbles with the details. Otherwise the Big Bang page would never loose its NPOV tag. --Iantresman 12:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)