Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 3

message: I would like to take up the issue of time scales again. The current (Lerner) version states
The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology are,
# ...
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Apparent inconsistency 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request for arbitration

message: Joshua, you've removed the illustration on force-free currents? This was illustrating:
#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."
#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."
#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,"
#Most people wouldn't recognise a force-free current if it hit them in the face
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  What was wrong with the M87 illustration? Jon 22:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jets aren't really illustrative of force-free currents. Joshuaschroeder 05:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not, exactly? Jon 02:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Force-free currents Illustration removal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: All irrelevent to the actual edits I was talking about. Please stop holding grudges and start editting. Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Lerner on how the article should be editted and by whom

message: 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.
 
--Iantresman 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cygnus radio loop illustration removal

message: 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)
thread_title: Lerner on Wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other options 

message: With the seeming success of my last edit, I have ventured into the next section. Here are the major changes I made:
#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.
#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.
#Explicitly stating what these phenomena are so that the reader doesn't have to search too hard in the article.
#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.
#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:
##"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.
##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."
##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."
##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)
replies: text: They really haven't been discussed at all. Please refer to them for each point. Thanks. --Joshuaschroeder 14:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Cosmic plasma section edits 

message: Can either editor please respond to my points in the above section? Thank you. --Joshuaschroeder 19:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunatley this aspect of cosmology is beyond my knowledge, so I am unable to comment. --Iantresman 08:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by Elerner and Reddi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on the conduct of two editors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  stop 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dishonest games

message: 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)
thread_title: POV tag removal