Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 4

message: Here is a link that defines the differences.
Point by point:
*added "primordial" to indicate that the idea is that the clouds were there first before galaxy formation (in conflict with standard galaxy formation models)
*Removed "perfectly formed" which is obviously a judgement call.
*Changed "closely correspond to" to "stages looked like". Correspondence indicates some sort of measurement while Perrat's focus was all by eye.
*"Additionally, Perrat claimed that his model could explain the galaxy rotation problem without invoking dark matter." in exchange for nearly a paragraph of writing on the subject. This is much clearer and spells out the idea very carefully.
*" it demonstrated that electromagnetic processes could lead to the forms observed at a galactic scale" removed because the simulation didn't show that at all, rather it showed that one could simulate the galactic scale forms which is a restatement of what Perrat did in the first place.
*"The fact that electromagnetic processes are important for angular momentum transport in disc and spiral galaxies is agreed upon by astrophysicists." -- unsupported and actually factually incorrect. 
*The Andromeda galaxy observations -- since plasma cosmology advocates completely reinterpret the context of this paper which was supposed to be about evidence for galactic canibalism, I removed the discussion. If the advocates want to contradict the main points of papers which they are going to use as evidence, let them publish their critique.
*Lerner's quasar model was removed since it isn't about structure formation.
*Removed "While big bang cosmology has difficulty accommodating the formation of very large structures (such as voids 100 Mpc or more across) in the limited amount of time available since the hypothesized origin of the universe," -- since this isn't a difficulty at all.
*Removed "For this to happen, the plasma must be collisional. Otherwise, particles will just continue in orbits like the planets of the solar system. Given the characteristic ion velocity in the filament, calculated from instability theory, the collisional condition implies that objects of mass M = 1.8 n-2 form from plasma of initial density n, where M is in solar masses and n in ions/cm3. This fractal scaling relationship (with fractal dimension equal to two) has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. In addition, the numerical constant in the relation between mass and density, or equivalently, mass and separation of objects (M = 9.7 x 1010 R2, where R is in Mpc and M is in solar masses) has been borne out by observation." for mainly cosmetic reasons. This is a poor restatement of the running power-law index that is important for standard structure formation, but it fails to admit several key points (such as the index "n" changes). It's better to include the claim that the structure is a fractal and leave it at that since the spectrum is claimed to be otherwise by mainstream scientists as indicated.
*Removed "In the plasma model, where superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments, a break in the scaling relationship is only anticipated at scales greater than approximately 3 Gpc. Naturally, since the plasma approach does not hypothesize an origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time needed to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory." -- this is unsourced and also seems to indicate that there is a problem of time in the Big Bang universe (which there isn't).
--ScienceApologist 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences

message: I've moved on to the light elements section. I culled quite a bit of material from the section, so I'd like to give my rationale. Here is a link to the differences: 
*The structure formation theory allowed Lerner to calculate the size of stars formed in the formation of a galaxy and thus the amounts of helium and other light elements that will be generated during galaxy formation. changed to Eric Lerner calculated the size of stars assuming Perrat's formation model and thus the amounts of helium and other light elements. for clarity sake. We need to be clear that it is the plasma formation model (with all its limitations) that Eric "uses" (though exactly how this is used I have yet to understand and it isn't addressed very well, as far as I can tell). 
*These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of helium-4, but very little carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. -- removed. This flies in the face of a lot of stellar lock-box points about hydrostatic equilibrium. Unless a source can be found for stating that large stars emit large amounts of helium into their environment, we should keep this point out.
*The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, -- removed. Aside from not describing what is meant by a "free variable" I can only say that this sounds like a strange pot-shot at the parameter models of big bang nucleosynthesis. It doesn't lend any explanatory power to the paragraph so for NPOV reasons is removed.
*The range of values predicted for 4He is from 21.5 to 24.8%. However, the theory is still tested by the observations, since the minimum predicted value remains a firm lower limit (additional 4He is of course produced in more mature galaxies). This minimum value is consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance, such as H II region, UM461, with an abundance of 21.9±0.8%. -- a long-winded description seems to have real problems. First of all, it doesn't state from where the famed lower limit on Helium abundance is supposed to arise in plasma cosmology (it's patently obvious in Big Bang nucleosynthesis) and the percentage range quotes don't seem to add a thing to the article. We might include something about consistancy, but since the model doesn't explain what is meant by primordial in a "plasma" model, there is no way to evaluate the veracity of these claims. I am willing to include more about this if someone can provide details, but I'll note that there isn't much in the way of references to this point.
*In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce – by collisions with ambient hydrogen and helium – the observed amounts of deuterium and lithium-7. change to In addition cosmic rays are postulated to produce – by collisions with ambient hydrogen and helium – the observed amounts of deuterium and various isotopes of lithium. This is a unique feature of plasma cosmology -- it demands that this stuff is created only by cosmic rays. Indeed, the abundance of these light elements is very difficult to measure as can be seen from the big bang nucleosynthesis page and cosmic ray influence has been suggested to be an important pollution of relic abundances. Since later on it is claimed that lithium-6 is also created by cosmic rays, I changed the statement to lithium in general.
*Deuterium production by the p + p → d+π reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2×10-5. This prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of D in low-metallicity systems were available and the consensus values for primordial D from big bang theory were 3–4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed "primordial" D values, although somewhat below the average D values. -- culled as a artifact sidebar to current understandings. There are a number of problems. First there is a claim that pp production of deuterium is "predicted by plasma theory" which is preposterous. It is a standard particle physics reaction and is present during BBN as well. Secondly, the references to 1989 shouldn't have any bearing on the article except to say that there hasn't been much activity in developing plasma cosmology since then. Claims that the BBN prediction was "higher" are very misleading. The BBN prediction is based on parameters which were not well constrained in 1989 so the error bars on the prediction did indeed reach down to what is now considered primordial abundance. It may be good to point out that plasma cosmology advocates have only calculated D abundances but not Lithium abundances, but I think it's better to just put out their mechanisms as simple points-of-order since such things as the cosmic ray flux and the effectiveness of such particles to produce the various light elements are not entirely well-determined (and so, given the right assumptions I have no doubt you could calculate practically any D-Li abundance you needed).
*In its present form, the absolute abundance of 7Li has not been calculated in the plasma-stellar theory of light elements. However, the theory unambiguously predicted (as has the big bang theory) that the abundance depends on the C, N and O abundance from stellar nucleosynthesis and subsequent observations have verified that prediction. Observations of the abundances of 6Li – which is also generated by cosmic rays, but is destroyed much more readily in stars – are also consistent with a cosmic-ray origin for 7Li. -- culled. See points above about Lithium calculations. Much of this paragraph is just talking about things that haven't been done or are unknown and it makes bold claims that are stated rather glibly as fact.
:--ScienceApologist 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Light elements section

message: Pathological science is a fair link and a criticism easily leveled against many of the proponents of plasma cosmology in the face of the criticism they have either ignored or been virulent in poorly attacking.
The prose on the Electric Universe is important so that the reader know that there is a separation between the two. In particular, it is important to state that the Electric Universe is much more outside the scientific mainstream than plasma cosmology.
---ScienceApologist 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so important to delineate the relationship between Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe, then it should be put in one or the other of the articles. There should be little or no commentary in See Also lists. --Art Carlson 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian Tresman's attempt to attain "normalcy"

message: I placed the content that Eric Lerner was working on under his proposal at Talk:Plasma cosmology/Elerner Proposal as per my above suggestion. --ScienceApologist 13:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Lerner's proposal

message: If these belong in the article, then they should be the reference to something:
* G. Arcidiacono, "Plasma physics and big-bang cosmology", Hadronic Journal 18, 306-318 (1995).
* J. E. Brandenburg, "A model cosmology based on gravity-electromagnetism unification", Astrophysics and Space Science 227, 133-144 (1995).
* J. Kanipe, "The pillars of cosmology: a short history and assessment". Astrophysics and Space Science 227, 109-118 (1995).
* W. C. Kolb, "How can spirals persist?," Astrophysics and Space Science 227, 175-186 (1995).
* B. E. Meierovich, "Limiting current in general relativity" Gravitation and Cosmology 3, 29-37 (1997).
* C. M. Snell and A. L. Peratt, "Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic-field strength in spiral galaxies", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 167-173 (1995).
I'm leaving them here for now. If anyone knows what they belong with, then please reinsert them to the article as footnotes. –Joke 16:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that the reference was less clear than before. I tried to reword it. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added in the point here that this argument contradicts hundreds of papers. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to summarize this. I don't think that anything of vital importance to the summary was left out, but I could be mistaken. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the sentence indicates an equivalence of total energy not of energy density. If you want to reword the sentence to imply something else, be my guest -- however, as the statement is right now it is correct. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Suggesting that "plasma cosmologists" is a neologism, and replacing it with "proponents of plasma cosmology", is ridiculous. It's removal blatantly violates Wiki's NPOV policy, (See Word ownership). What's the possible motive for its removal? Is it supposed to imply that plasma cosmologists aren't "real" cosmologists. Perhaps the average reader won't understand a simple construct that uses the word "cosmologist" in a "strange" context? --Iantresman 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to over-react, I assumed the criticism was that it was a neologism, and I'm used to ScienceApologist not accepting words because he considers them to be too "new" --Iantresman 09:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Eric, I would appreciate it if when you edit the footnotes you don't mess them up! And why the deletion of the couple sentences about GR? I have to say, this edit leaves me feeling much less sanguine. –Joke 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can someone migrate to cite.php? The footnotes are a total hash. –Joke 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What disturbs me about these last edits is that they were largely verbatim copy and paste from your old version, without much care or attention to detail. I can't see much reason for that. –Joke 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains how the typo reappeared. Art LaPella 04:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read Hawking and Ellis? Do you know what the Raychaudhuri equation is? You're talking about the state of knowledge in GR in the 1950s. –Joke 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have tried to clean up the article as best I can and merge Elerner's and SA's edits. The footnotes are still a shambles. I also can't say I'm happy about how Elerner's edits seem largely to be reverting SA's edits for clarity to his old text, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of it went, again. I'm done for now. –Joke 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Footnotes now work. Don't break them any more and don't revert to an old version. –Joke 16:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried not to. If I mess up, please go ahead and revert me, Joke. --ScienceApologist 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this kind of contentious discussion could be largely avoided if both "sides" chose a few citations and left it to the pro and con websites to provide comprehensive lists of publications, as per my proposal above. ---CH 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references 

message: While decrying my bias, Eric continues to add his unsourced opinions to the article preventing the editting from moving forward. His inability to work with other editors is tiresome and needs to be addressed. I have reverted his edits for now and request he justify them point-by-point here on the talkpage as I did for previous edits I made. Thanks,--23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I count the above statement as a bald-faced lie. --ScienceApologist 23:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric continues to add unsourced ideas, bias into the article

message: In an attempt to initiate a truce. I scrapped the old version and started from the version that Eric Lerner had. I still have major problems with this version, but at least the more glaring problems were removed. I will attempt to summarize my edits here:
*I removed a large section about the development of MHD. I understand the motivation for wanting to include this, but let's stick to the plasma cosmology of the 1960s as it was described in the above paragraph.
*changed "rarely neglible and often" to "sometimes". Sometimes electromagnetic forces are considered important. Sometimes they aren't. This is a point of disagreement but I believe my version to be neutral.
*changed "thus naturally becomes" to "can therefore become" because not all plasmas are inhomogeneous in this fashion on all scales.
*clarified when plasma filamentation is used, because it is used outside of the suggestions of the plasma cosmology folks.
*Changed two "Perrat concluded" to "Perrat claimed" simply because the conclusions are controversial. more neutral wording regarding how Perrat explained findings.
*cleaned up "plasma filamentation theory" wording to better conform to a readable style.
*Made a new paragraph for predictions of structure formation.
*added a point about Lerner's quasar model being in absolute contradiction with standard models.
*changed the wording of the stellar nucleosynthesis section (one note: primordial hydrogen is not discussed by this page -- why not?)
*Added two instances of references neeeded for the nucleosynthesis section.
*Removed some backhanded attacks at the Big Bang nucleosynthesis "free variables" as per discussion above.
*Removed rhetorical question "But what would convert this radiation into the extremely smooth and isotropic 2.7 K black-body radiation of the CMB?" as a bad-form editorial point. It didn't add anything to the description anyway.
*Removed "In 2004-2005 additional evidence supported the existence of some medium that scattered and re-emitted the CMB." This kind of weasly wording leads people down the wrong path. Lieu did not have plasma cosmology in mind when he did his study.
*Removed "far less angular scale" and replaced with "less" since the errors are not well known, and the conclusion is still up for editorial comment. 
*Changed "critics" to "most of the scientists who have offered such analyses" in an attempt to remove weasel wording.
*Reorganized the paragraph on Tolman test. There are still problems with this, but at least now it doesn't repeat itself.
Those are my edits. Please discuss them beneath the bullets if you think any are particular onerous.
--ScienceApologist 00:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he also claimed this then as well. I think the problem with "concluded" is that it makes it sound like a banal and uncontroversial statement that is the sort of "natural result" of a data analysis. Since the "conclusion" of Perrat's paper is disputed, it is more appropriate to use the word "claimed".
*Likewise, of plasma cosmologists consider electromagnetic forces to be important and "rarely neglible", then that is what should be described. Of course if the articles implied that everyone believed that electromagnetic forces to be important and "rarely neglible", then that would not be accurate. --Iantresman 01:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article did imply that "everyone" believed it to be that way, as far as I could ascertain. Read the current version and see. --ScienceApologist 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SA's latest edit attempt

message: We have now waited some weeks and have no movement forward on references. This is fair warning to editors that I'm going to start commenting out prose that have citations with no reference. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your double standards disgust me. You're quite happy to include a statement that is allegedly attributed to Peratt, but you are unable to verify, and you personally decide on whether the verifiable quotes are "suitable", and remove them if you don't approve. --Iantresman 16:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I told you, look at Template talk:ref and Template talk:note. It's not very simple. And my reply is above, and has been for some time. Pay attention, please. –Joke 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, how can you refute something you haven't even read? –Joke 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note regarding verifiability

message: I also preferred the previous #1 Assumption, but since I couldn't find an EXACT referenced footnote, amend it. But if people are satisfied with the previous version, and feel that the footnote is satisfactory, I'm happy to revert. Strictly speaking, the reference does not say that EM forces are equal in importance; but it does say that they may be more important for ions. 
PreviousAmended
Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales Because electromagnetic forces can be much stronger than gravity, they have a greater effect on charged particles (such as those in a plasma). Since most of the visible universe is considered to be plasma, electromagnetic forces are considered very important in ionized interplanetary and interstellar matter--Iantresman 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: #1 Assumption

message: I created a red link to another archive since this page is so incredibly unwieldy, then thought better of it re the RfC.  So I'll leave the red link but defer populating that page until the RfC runs its course. ---CH 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive more of this page?

message: I missed the point where Joke removed the reference to Lieu's belief. To make it clear, I included a quote from the guy. We need a reference now to a Plasma Cosmology person who disputes Lieu's interpretation of his own work. Unless this happens, we have to take out the plasma cosmology conclusion as unverifiable. --ScienceApologist 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieu's stuff

message: Prompted by the addition of the image, I'm afraid I have to insist on the question that went unanswered above: Is that a statement about the 3-d form, a projection, or a slice of the simulation data? It makes a big difference whether the plasma simulations produce 3-d structures that resemble galaxies, or whether the data can be sliced or projected in such a way that the resulting 2-d image resembles a 2-d image of a galaxy. --Art Carlson 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question (which I missed first time around). On reading through Peratt's paper, Abstract Full text (PDF), he mentions that the still images are cross-sectional views, and, he writes in his Abstract the ".. application of fully three-dimensional electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations to filamentary plasmas ..". As for the "depth" profile, I'll need to do some more homework. --Iantresman 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peratt writes: "The axial extent is determined either by the length of the "micro-pinch" within the filament .. these are typically comparable to the filamental width.", though it would still be intersting to know the profile. --Iantresman 11:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I'm sure it's not the final word, but that seems to be a sizeable problem. It sounds like Peratt is talking about an extended filament that breaks up into galaxies with a separation along the string comparable to the diameter of the galaxies. Real galaxies are usually not ordered in lines (although they may be) and tend to have a separation equal to tens to thousands of times their diameters. --Art Carlson 11:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peratt writes on his Amimation page that "The simulation pertains to two gaussian tapered disks..." --Iantresman 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my last comment was not meant as a reply to yours, just extra info. I need to find out the distance between pinches (and hence galaxies). --Iantresman 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peratt's galaxy formation simulation 

message: Yo, it's not the discussion that is the problem as I see it, it's that you are changing what Eric is saying, and that is illegal and I don't blame him one bit for being frustrated. It would matter much if you knew what you were talking about, but the way you talk is is as if you are anti-plasma. You are hurting the cause of plasma more than any big bang ganger could do. 
:I consider the word "illegal" a bit reckless. Even the most indiscriminate reverts are a violation of Wikipedia policy, not the law. Art LaPella 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't explain all of ScienceApologist's reverts (in a way he would like), but I know it isn't because he hasn't heard this stuff before. After months of this debate, most of the speech above sounds awfully familiar. You might have mentioned that Wikipedia is intended to report prevailing opinions, not to decide the truth for ourselves, and most astronomers really do oppose non-standard cosmology (if they didn't, it would therefore become standard cosmology). Art LaPella 05:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa. –Joke 05:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh God. If you need me I'm in the pub getting drunk... Jon 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a time I would have gone through and responded to everything point by point, but I don't think that is necessary. You need to read the archives both here, at nonstandard cosmologies and at Big Bang. After you've read those archives and have seen that all of your points have been addressed then we can talk. What's more, many of your "sources" are original research coming from "personal communication", etc. That is forbidden here at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tommysun's Manifesto