Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 5

message: I attempted to move the irrelevant stuff to the top, and moved the real discussion as a group toward the end. If this looks good, maybe the last half can be reorganized better again. For that matter, the above could be archived as far as I am concerned. Tommy Mandel 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REFACTORED

message: Two claims made in the article have been patiently waiting references for a month. Eric has been asked to provide them repeatedly. He has not. If someone has references for them, please add them, but at this point, I think that the references need to be readily available or the prose needs to be removed. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved my comment to the Change 4 section below. Jon 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ian, I understand the distinction between MHD and what plasma cosmology tries to do. To use your analogy, it would be like including information on Newtonian physics in the Big Bang page even though it is based on GR. We should exclude MHD because PC doesn't use it. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plasma cosmologists use magnetohydrodynamics where it is applicable, but unlike others, don't use it where it is not applicable. See Astrophysical plasma characteristics, and in particular, the table by Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, adapted from their book Cosmical Electrodynamics, where the suitability of magnetohydrodynamics is shown for different types of space plasmas. --Iantresman 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ian, do you have a source for the claim that there are others who use MHD where it is not applicable? Unless you can point to this, there is no case to be made for the inclusion of such an opinion. --ScienceApologist 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we claim this in the article? --Iantresman 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pseudoplasma error is held up as a starting point for plasma cosmology, so we effectively do claim this. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the statement "Alfvén devoted a large portion of his Nobel address to attacking this “pseudo plasma” error.", then I claim his Nobel address as a citation. --Iantresman 18:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It also doesn't actually matter what Lieu believes or what he concluded. The important point is that his data supports a plasma cosmology prediction. Eric (rightly and respectfully) does not discuss what Lieu concluded from his data because that is actually irrelevant to the point in question. -- but since there is no citation to someone using that data to support a plasma cosmology prediction, this smack of original research. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Eric, there is an easy way to get protection taken off. Discuss my edits with me. I implore you as a fellow Wikipedian. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please! I just want someone to talk about my edits! --ScienceApologist 13:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page
and it continues with--
Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
Tommysun 19:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The page was protected by VoiceOfAll, not by an active Plasma Cosmology editor, so how was this rule violated? And even if it was, that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy, not the law, so please stop using the reckless word "illegal". Art LaPella 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Widowed references deleted

message: Let me point out that on the current course, we will not get consensus on anything and the article will just be frozen the way Joshua wants it. I suggest that we start by taking each one of Joshua's disputed edits in turn and vote on them. If we get some lopsided votes on some, let's call it consensus and change it. Then we can turn to Tommysun's edits and the definition of plasma and see if we can get a lopsided vote on one definition. I don't know what VOA calls consensus other than it does not mean unanimous and probably does not mean a 3-2 vote. So can people just weigh in on this procedural question? Can we get consensus on that?Elerner 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not work by means of popularity contests but rather by Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia:Polls are considered by many people (including myself) to be evil, and I think that we need to be careful in how we use them. --ScienceApologist 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Eric, for your suggestion. If this discussion doesn't get some focus I'm just going to scream! Joshua, let's try this. It might work. If we see it developing into Evilness, we can pull the brake. Tommy, slow down! Thank you, Voice, for freezing the page and for (effectively) offering to mediate. I am sure you will regret it. --Art Carlson 08:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate.  When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.  The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin.  If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. See the pages for RFA, AFD and RM for further discussion of such figures. The numbers are by no means fixed, but are merely statistics reflecting past decisions. Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. However, judgment and discretion are applied to determine the correct action. The discussion itself is more important than the statistics. In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.
Sorry for the large quote, but it is quite relevant :) Jon 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting suggestion

message: Reinstate "Building on the work of Kristian Birkeland,"
Justification: Birkeland was the first to point out the role of cosmic plasma and Alfven did , in his own view, build on Birkeland's work. There is no reason to eliminate this part of PC's history.  Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?
* Obviously prior research credit - agree Tommysun 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a guess, I'd say his work in developing the idea of Birkeland currents... Jon 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So perhaps the prose is a bit mixed up here. Alfven's work may have been in addition to rather than built directly on Birkeland's work. Thoughts, ideas? --ScienceApologist 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 1) 

message: OK, I feel a bit like I'm sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but please hear me out:
The overview gives three assumptions as lying at the core of plasma cosmology.  The first I'm sceptical of because it ignores the fact that on the largest scales the charges even out, but then I can see that the claim that they don't is what makes plasma cosmology different.
:Plasmas are indeed overall electrically neutral, nobody is seriously disputing that. But ignoring EMF and Hall MHD effects on very large scales and assuming matter behaves like a neutral gas, the way most astrophysics does, is like assuming that the human race is overall genderless and trying to explain human behaviour without it. Treating matter at large scales as a plasma rather than a gas produces completely different outcomes. Galactic rotation curves are different, galaxy clustering characteristics are different and evolve at different speeds, and so on. There are very powerful positive feedback loops that occur in contracting plasmas that behave very differently to the much weaker gravitational feedback that occurs in a contracting "cloud of gas and dust". What nobody seems to have done (or perhaps they have but I can't find it anywhere) is how matter behaves when both HMHD and gravitation are considered together. I think Peratt's work hints at it, but nobody has the supercomputer time to spare, it would seem.
:For instance, Peratt shows that treating a galaxy as two interacting plasma filaments (rather than as an overall neutral cloud of matter acting solely under gravity) produces a galaxy rotation curve that matches observation without the need for a dark matter halo or a SMBH. Jon 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Bang doesn't assume Doppler redshift to be true, it provides an explanation for the observed redshift as a result of its assumptions, which nowhere include the redshift itself.  You're confusing the history of the discovery with the logical chain of the theoretical argument. --Bth 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Eric can answer this better than I can, but I'll give it a go. Plasma cosmologists don't assume the Big Bang isn't true, more of a case that plasma cosmology does not in itself provide any evidence of a Big Bang, rather, plasma cosmology merely indicates an "evolving universe" (ie. one in constant flux). Secondly, plasma cosmologists tend to to put empirical evidence over theory, and asks what we both known and can demonstrate in the laboratory, and how that may be applied to what is observed in space. So whereas some astronomers require black holes, neutron stars, dark matter and dark energy to explain certain phenomenon gravitationally, plasma cosmologists try to explain the same phenomenon without them, by including electromagnetic forces, and find that they can describe similar them to their satisfaction. --Iantresman 15:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution is not solely a biological term (if it is, its inclusion here implies the universe is alive).  As for your scepticism about the biological ToE, frankly it doesn't help your credibility. --Bth 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure "evolution" can be used in a biological sense, which would be completely inappropriate here as there is no "selection". I use it in the loosest terms, meaning a change, or development. --Iantresman 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I think the use of "evolution" in that sense is entirely appropriate -- even mainstream astronomers talk about "galactic evolution", for example.  I was disagreeing with Tommysun's claim that it's a purely biological term by pointing out it was being used in another sense within the article. --Bth 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma cosmology's basic assumptions 

message: Here is what scientists can do. Notive how their simulation looks just like a galaxy Tommysun 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the text was added by ScienceApologist , and in such a way that the footnote appears to endorse it. I've removed it as I can find no verification. --Iantresman 09:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Astrophysical plasma|Plasma astrophysics]] as a model

message: This is how I edited these paragraphs. I spent an entire evening on this and did it without trying to ruin the work of others. In the middle of this somehow my edits disappeared dn't know why but I finally got it back the way I did it. This makes sense to me. I think that Eric wants to correct some of this, but I would like to have my say before it gets reverted back to the beginning. Please/
 Thanks TM
Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model which incorporates the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmologists have proposed explanations for the evolution of the universe; from galaxy formation, to the cosmic microwave background, to large scale structure. Plasma is scalable, and electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas are used to study astrophysical plasma. Plasma cosmology is considered to be a non-standard cosmology. [1]
Plasma are those charged particles that are electrically-conductive and responds collectively to electromagnetic forces. It typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds or charged ion beams, but may also include dust and grains (called dusty plasmas) [2] They are typically formed by heating and ionizing a gas, stripping electrons away from atoms, thereby enabling the positive and negative charges to move freely. This movement typically takes on a spiraling structure. Plasma makes up the stars, the interstellar medium, and intergalactic medium. Astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are important in stars, galactic discs, quasars and active galactic nuclei.
:I changed the second sentence of the introduction, because the subject had changed.
:*It had mentioned "those charged particles that are electrically-conductive", which I felt was ambiguous. Are there those charged particles that are not electrically-conductive? Are the particles themselves electrically-conductive? I don't think the particles themselves are electrically-conductive, but it's the movement of those particles that may constitute an electric current.
:*Strictly, its the plasma itself, and not the charged particles that is electrically conductive. 
:::Is plasma a conductor? Or is plasma what is being conducted? Plasma differs from ordinary matter in that a ordinary conductor is not needed. So maybe it is more accurate to say that plasma is self-conducting. If this introduvces a bit of a mystery, then that is good, not bad. 
:*"electrically conductive" does not necessarily mean "conducting electricity, but means "has the ability to" conduct electricity. Copper wire is "electrically conductive" but at this moment in time, it is not necessarily "conducting electricity".
:--Iantresman 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got it now, because plasma is populated by free electrons, these electrons can participate in an electron conduction state and thus plasma is a very good conductor.  A significant point because electric currents are not studied by everyone.
Tommy Mandel 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found no evidence that plasma is a plural, and anyway "Plasma are" sounds weird. Art LaPella 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but I was trying to improve the sentence without deleting someone elses work. I wouldn't say "plasma is a collection...that acts collectively...I would say something like plasma is composed of (these parts) which acts as a whole" Tommy Mandel 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tommy's edits here

message: The future:
Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter ΛCDM model of the big bang. However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that research into alternative cosmologies be funded.[41]
Obviously this needs to be rewritten but rather than do it then talk about it I'm going to do it here first.  
----
Plasma is a fact. Plasma Cosmology as an observational and theoretical science is widely unknown. The Hubble Telescope has brought us fantastic views of what plasma looks like. It's effects on star formation, galaxy structure and large scale structures are only beginning to be appreciated. Plasma cosmology is widely unknown to most conventional cosmologists because of the lack of their expertise in electrical phenomenon, the lack of support from of those deeply involved with and committed to the standard theory. and the lack of research funding made available for research outside the academic mainstream. The signers of the Open Letter to the Scientific Community" conclude: "Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."
----
Tommy Mandel 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That rewrite is worse. "There is no question that Plasma Cosmology, in the general sense, is part of the future" - what does that even mean, even if it were to be true? Whatever it means, it certainly isn't a neutral point of view. It sounds like a leaflet dropped from a plane. Jon 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to say that whatever happens, plasma will play a role in any future cosmology. Tommy Mandel 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree you "fixed it" in the sense of answering my criticism - your first sentence no longer purports to refute the obvious truism you removed. Art LaPella 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As we've been through before and as you understand better than you're letting on, "plasma is a fact" but nevertheless "plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory". "Plasma cosmology" isn't defined as cosmology recognizing the existence of plasma - by that definition, ScienceApologist is a plasma cosmologist. Rather, plasma cosmology claims that plasma effects are more important to cosmology than is generally recognized. Art LaPella 04:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something wrong with that? I don't get what you are driving at. "PC is not a widely accepted scientific theory", so? "Plasma cosmology" isn't defined as cosmology recognizing the existence of plasma", is that what is bothering you? Let's see, Plasma Cosmology, is labeling a special case of the more general cosmology. By doing so, it becomes cosmology from the point of view of Plasma. Does this mean plasma cosmology is separate from standard cosmology? Well, insofar that the standard theory makes assumptions, plasma cosmology can do that too. What about these philosophical assumptions and interpretations? Are you talking about that?
Tommy Mandel 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Future

message: I found this ESA research into GR gravity fascinating, although it is only perhaps of peripheral relevance to this article; I figured most of you here would be interested in it. Jon 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting results