Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 6

message: I had to go to the big bang talk to find out what SA has to say about redshift. He does get around, but the results are usually the same. ScienceApologist is wrong that Doppler redshift is an observation. 
Tommy Mandel 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better way to direct people to such dialog: Talk:Big Bang#Observed vs. inferred velocities and Talk:Big Bang#The only theory? Art LaPella 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just reported your legal threat to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as such commentary is explicitly against Wikipedia policy. Please consider removing this statement. --ScienceApologist 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tommy meant to accuse Joke (I don't think it was me) of an arguable Wikipedia analog of an obstruction of justice charge, not a real world lawsuit or charge. That is, (in Tommy's world) removing the Talk:Big Bang quotes is protecting his enemies from retribution by Wikipedia administrators. It's still off the wall - the dialog is still linked, and he should at least be citing Wikipedia policy before making such an accusation. And he should clarify that he isn't going to sue anybody. Art LaPella 06:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been involved in controversial articles for years and this is the first time I've ever seen somebody use an "analog" to a lawsuit in discussions on the talkpage. I cannot fathom what Tommy hopes to get out of making such statements. In any case, this kind of behavior is extremely disruptive and it's getting more and more difficult to know how to take it. --ScienceApologist 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding my general opposition to one's getting upset over baseless legal threats and notwithstanding Art's note that perhaps Tommy was writing apropos of Wikijustice, even as his locution and irrespective of the fact that there are very, very few civil causes of action that stem from "obstruction of justice", I must say that Tommy's comment there is surely the strangest quasi-legal threat ever I have seen here (and, as we all know, there are often some odd ones).  Joe 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redshift and plasma 

message: ONE
If you recall, quantized redshift was brought up for mention in all cosmology articles. I have included four references which include the original author, a corroboration paper, a second confirmation and a statistical analysis paper.  If I remember correctly, you stated elsewhere on at least two different occasions something to the effect that "quantized redshift has been shown not to exist," citing small number statistic error. 
Please show me your paper. Here is mine.
----
A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims 
Author: Napier W.M.1
Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 285, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9) Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Abstract: Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicities are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artifacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
----
If you are unable to find your paper, then we are forced to assume that the above paper is correct.  (note; you may be thinking about a paper which didn't show quantization until the motion of the earth was taken into account which by itself says a lot)
I also have three papers which establish, verify and confirm quantized redshift. How would you like to word the notification?
TWO
It has often been stated that Hubble's law proves that the Universe is expanding. However, Hubble did not observe expansion, he observed a relationship between redshift and distance. Velocity entered the picture when "c" was added into his equation. Strictly speaking Doppler effects are assumed. 
Hubble's actual position on expansion
----
::"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953)." 
This from 
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL
ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621 
EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953
By Allan Sandage
----
THREE
And now we can discuss what a quantized redshift means. Does it mean that Hubble was right about his reluctance to assume expansion? And if it is  true that Doppler redshift is not an indicator of expansion, then is it also true  there is no need for an extrapolated beginning from nothing? 
Tommy Mandel 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating though this might be, can we discuss it on the Redshift page instead? There's nothing in plasma cosmology at the moment about this phenomenon, real supposed or otherwise. Jon 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, better yet, why not at the redshift quantization page? --ScienceApologist 03:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, "quantized redshift (an observation)" is wrong because the sentence refers to ScienceApologist's opinion, and he believes quantized redshift studies are mistaken. Art LaPella 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insightful of you Art. Tommy Mandel 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page is a forum to discuss improvements to the article. The article is about plasma cosmology. If there are prominent plasma cosmologists (whatever you want to call them), who believe that quantized redshifts are relevant to plasma cosmology, then they should be cited. (As I mentioned before, I think the ideas are contradictory.) If there are not, then this is not the proper place for any of this thread, and it should be stopped. --Art Carlson 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantized Redshift section 

message: Here's something I've just stumbled upon - WikiReason.net, which seems to be set up for staging debates. Perhaps this may be of some use, to cut down the volume of traffic on this talk page. What do we think? Jon 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but the result would likely change their name from "WikiReason" to "The Tommy Site". Art LaPella 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiReason forum 

message: User:Tommysun's contributions are not relevant to this page. I suggest we remove them so that discussions about editting the article can continue. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not objecting - the precedent is scary and could easily be used against yourself, but the status quo isn't getting anything done either. Quote from Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: "Refactoring of talk pages on Wikipedia is important. New editors to a page need to be aware of past controversies without having to read 50,000 words beforehand, which for some pages (Talk:Mother Teresa, for example) is how much of the talk archives have accumulated." Also see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Remove off-topic comments. Art LaPella 04:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: While I sympathise, I think that's (as usual) too heavy-handed. Jon 08:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an alternate proposal? --Art Carlson 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in favor of giving people a lot of slack on the talk pages, but Tommy has used up all of his. In his latest post, he copied 400 words where he could have used a single link. The consequence he drew for the editing of the article (the only justification for posting anything on a talk page), namely that quantized redshift should be mentioned, does not follow from this quote any more than from the previous ones. In fact, quantized redshifts are not mentioned anywhere on the www.plasmacosmology.net site. I share the other Art's reluctance to remove contributions from talk pages, but the Wiki policies he cites give us ample justification in this case. If someone wants to take the trouble to clean up past contributions or to create an extra page for collecting Tommy's drivel, more power to him. I will personally remove any posts of his in the future which are not (1) germane to the editing of the article, (2) half-way coherent and logical, and (3) reasonably terse. --Art Carlson 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I have blanked this section. This is ordinairily a Bad Move in Wikipedia. I think it is clearly justified in this case because:
# There is no relevance to the editing of the article. The article does no currently describe plasma cosmology as a "fringe viewpoint", and there is no suggestion of how the article can be improved.
# The contributions are inappropriately long. In particular, citations are included where links would suffice. This makes it hard for the rest of us to carry on a focussed and efficient discussion.
# The contributor (Tommy Mandel) has a history of plastering the Talk Page with irrelevant, illogical and interminable comments. (See above, here and here.)
--Art Carlson 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence that Plasma cosmology is not a fringe viewpoint

message: Editors and readers of this page may be interested in The International Conference of Plasma Science (ICOPS 2006), being held at Michigan State University, Traverse City, 4-8 June 2006. One of the sessions is 1.2 Space Plasmas, organised by Anthony L. Peratt, where you can personally ask him about his  published work which has been mentioned in this article, and those of other plasma cosmologists.
--Iantresman 13:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ICOPS 2006

message: I have a problem with the first line of the section, "It has long been noted[25] that the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of helium-4 is the same as the amount of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."  
First, the line that follows it is a serious non-sequiter: it refers to "such galaxies" that are not mentioned in the previous line.  Also, cite 25, R. H. Cuybert, "Primordial nucleosynthesis for the new cosmology: Determining uncertainties and examining concordance", Physical Review D 70, Issue 2, id. 023505 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0401091., doesn't actually say anything about energy released from He-4 being the same as the energy in the CMB, as far as I can tell.  Since he's supporting Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, I think he would not want to draw that conclusion, since the CMB is just supposed to be the last scattering surface and should have little to do with BBN.  
Then again, I could be wrong, and since this is a controversial article I don't want to make any edit myself... it might be something to look at during mediation. --Keflavich 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microwave Background section