Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Tommysun's revisions

Hey, Tommysun, would you clean up your edits?! Point 1, there are duplications that I can't make heads nor tails of. Point 2, they are much too long to figure out what your main points are. If you want us (or me, at least) to pay attention, pick your most important points and express them tersely. You can back them up if needed later, either in the Talk or, perhaps better, on a private page to which you can reference. --Art Carlson 09:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned it up. Now read this straight from the first paragraph of the article.

"Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for 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."

Are you telling me that this sentence is: a. grammatically correct? b. factually accurate? c. not misleading?

First of all, "large scale structure" is a singular "while evolution of the universe" is a universal. They should not be placed together the way that they are in the article. "From galasy formation to the cosmic microwave background", is a phrase and requires a comma, beginning and end. And "invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas" is referring to the laws of scale, which, I notice, is not even mentioned in the article.Tommysun 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Singular and universal. I looked up some descriptions of a rule called "parallel construction", and all the bad examples to be avoided were a lot worse than this one. "Structure" and "evolution" are both nouns. I don't think that "evolution of the universe" is a universal because there is only one known example. "Evolution" is a noun form of a verb, so maybe "structure" could change to something like "organization", but I can't think of a rewording that would create more clarity than it would remove. Can you? You didn't propose a solution. This objection is very picky for someone whose previous post misspells "grammatically" and "galaxy", and misplaces the quote mark before "while" that should go before "evolution".

Are there rules for the talk pages too? Singular and universal are Poppers terms for specific and general. Singular is a specific something while universal is meant to apply to several if not all instances. So the sentence mentions a specific, then a universal and then two more specifics. At the least the specifics should be grouped together. The sentence should read something like

Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the evolution of the universe, from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, and to large scale structure.

I question this statement, as it is, because it does not tell us if there are other explanations or not. Are these elaborated on in the text? And I do believe that using the phraseology "Adovocates of plasma cosmology" establishes a POV, and if so, then those advocates ought to be allowed to state their point of view. If not, then "advocates" should be removed.

Popper is new to me, but I still don't think "evolution of the universe" is a universal because there is only one known example: the known universe. More importantly, I had to keep reading your sentence over and over again to try to get it to go together for me, so therefore I prefer the existing sentence, although I'm not a revert warrior or anything. I was puzzled by the question if there are other explanations in the text - the alternative to plasma cosmology advocates is of course the big bang, which is linked. Yes, the word "advocates" labels the sentence as a pro-plasma cosmology sentence. That is one of many sentences in which plasma cosmologists are indeed allowed to state their point of view. The question is whether they get enough opportunity for their point of view. Art LaPella 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

2. The comma after "background". I agree the sentence would at least be clearer that way. So instead of making any more speeches about it, I'm adding the comma. If you made such changes yourself, I'm sure ScienceApologist wouldn't revert them (well, almost sure).

Thank you!

3. Electromagnetic phenomena associated with the laboratory assume the laws of scale, which aren't mentioned in the article. They also assume the laws of arithmetic, which also aren't mentioned. I must be missing something here. Art LaPella 22:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen plasma work with arithmetic so I don't understand your point. Scaling is not just something one can assume everyone else knows, it perhaps one of the most singular characteristics of plasma. It is an extremely important aspect of plasma physics. It is important because it means that what goes on in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the galactic without error. It means that if over-unity energies can be produced in the lab, then galaxies probably are able to do that too. That is exactly what astronomers observe.

My point about arithmetic was that plasma obeys Maxwell's equations, which assume knowledge of algebra, which assumes arithmetic, but we don't explain all of that so we don't necessarily need to explain the scale issue for that reason. Having thought about it more and looked through the article, a more thoughtful response would be that the scaling argument should indeed be in the article because it keeps coming up. But scaling is in the article - just search the article for the letters "scal" and see how often they come up. Arguing that your side doesn't get enough say, would be more convincing if you didn't keep exaggerating your opposition. Art LaPella 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma was at work long before Maxwell formulated his equations.

Most "laboratory plasmas" came after, and anyway my main point above was to refute this: "the laws of scale, which, I notice, is not even mentioned in the article." Art LaPella 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to Joshua's reverts above (way above by now). Tommysun, you should check on "history" to see if mine was the last revert. If it is, make your changes to that version. Then you can revert to that version by going to history, clicking on the right version and then clicking on "edit". You can then edit and save that version. Consult the wiki directions if you have trouble.Elerner 18:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Already I have had problems making edits when someone else is also making edits at the same time.

I have replied to Eric's reverts above (way above by now). Eric has continued to ignore my requests. He is a POV-pusher and is well on his way to a Wikipedia ban if he keeps it up. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you the owner of WP? I want to make that same claim about you.

I submit that ScienceApologist is pushing the big bang POV.

At least Eric is in the right place. SA, you really should go somewhere else, anywhere else, because it is clear that you do not belong here. Nor are you wanted here. Why don't you learn your science from those you admire. Science, contrary to popular belief, moves forward by working togethe. Competition and survival of the fittest in the human body is like cancer - tough to beat, devastating, and in the end, suicidal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun (talk • contribs) .

Tommysun, you are new here. Before you start telling other people what to do, why not learn some basic Wikipedia conventions? Among these are talk page etiquette: don't edit other people's comments, even to move them around, and always sign your comments, which you can do by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Also, consider this: you don't apppear to know what you're talking about. Many of the things you've mentioned, such as dark energy stars, quantized redshifts and outflows from galaxies have, so far as I can see, absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology. This page is not intended – correct me if I'm wrong Eric – to be a hodgepodge of big bang kvetching. Finally, don't quote so prolifically from external sources. Nobody wants to see all that on the talk page, and we can perfectly well follow links if you provide them. –Joke 02:45, 10 March 2006

So, I see the whole gang from the big bang pages is over here on the other side... What is a dark energy star? Quantized redshift means no expansion, no expansion means no big bang, no big bang means plasma cosmology is the future, and more than just of historical interest which all of you let slip by. Very clever you are. But not smart enough. And don't tell me I should act like you. No one knows what they are talking about, if they did, they wouldn't have to talk about it. There's a lot of people who know what I am talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun (talk • contribs) .

You linked to the Chapline paper about dark energy stars (that supposedly shows black holes do not exist). The rest of your comments make no sense. –Joke 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Never thought for even a second that they would make sense to many of you.

Corrections needed:

1. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for the large scale structure and evolution of the universe,

Evolution of the universe is redundant in this sentence. "Proposed" is a better term than is "offered". I have never read a scientific papers that "offered" a position.

Evolution of the universe is a process, large scale structure is a result, so where is the redundance? Either "proposed" or "offered" would be OK with me, although "proposed" is more pro-plasma cosmology. Any paper "offers" a position as defined by dictionary.com: "To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink." Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

2. by invoking electromagnetic phenomena associated with laboratory plasmas.

What the original authors were talking about is called "scaling." The phrase "invoking" is not appropriate.

"Invoking" gets the picture across to me, although replacing it with "scaling" would work too. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Plasma cosmology is considered by both proponents and critics to be a non-standard cosmology.[1]

The use of the term "standard cosmology" itself is not NPOV.

What's the alternative, "protoscience"? "Non-standard cosmology" sounds more NPOV than that. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely,

Electricity is the movement of free electrons too.

Maybe it should say the ions are flowing, but I'll let the scientists handle that one. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And here is how they handle it ---Ionized gases, liquids, and solids are weak examples of plasmas. The former, ionized gases, have been extensively studied in the laboratory. However, while ionized gases belong to the plasma family, plasmas are not ionized gases. This fact leads to misconceptions in the nature of plasmas in space and the universe. To parapharse Timothy Eastman:

Plasmas are for Everyone. Gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations. The term plasma is for everyone and not just for specialists.Plasma is defined as a partially or fully ionized medium which exhibits collective effects due to interactions with electric and magnetic fields.Often, the solar wind is described as a "vast stream of ions" (neglecting electrons and the fields), strongly implying (incorrectly) a Navier-Stokes fluid. Plasmas are not simply a type of gas. Let's be more accurate and recognize as well that plasmas are for everyone. Found at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/NoPlasma.html

Sounds plausible. Are you proposing a specific edit yet? Art LaPella 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Astrophysicists agree that electromagnetic effects are important in stars, galactic discs, quasars and active galactic nuclei but in the standard big bang model the formation of structure is dominated by gravitational effects

Amazing how twisting the language around can change the POV

Sounds fine to me. Once again, your alternative is ...? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Plasma cosmology advocates assert that the universe has no beginning,

If true then plasma and cosmolgy do not belong together.

Why not? Dictionary.com says cosmology is "The study of the physical universe considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space", not necessarily a study of a beginning. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales [2].

How does "nearly all" imply "equal" importance?

It argues for electromagnetic importance, from a plasma cosmology POV - arguing about which is more important sounds like a semantic mess. Once again, what's your alternative? Do plasma cosmologists say electromagnetic forces are more important? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

8. 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.

When did "NOW" begin?

"NOW" is a moment, and the word isn't in the statement. I must be missing something. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.

This is not correct. Some parts of the universe do not "evolve."

Like black holes? Depends on what time scale you mean. See Ultimate fate of the universe. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

10. Plasma cosmology was first developed by Swedish physicist Hannes Alfvén together with Oskar Klein, Per Carlqvist and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar beginning in 1962.[4]

This poorly written.

I tried interchanging some phrases without improving anything. Once again, I can't guess what change you had in mind. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

11. While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most of astronomers or physicists

Also poorly written.

Ditto, although the second "of" should be deleted when the page is unprotected. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

12. These physicists have proposed theories and hypotheses which explain the basic features of the universe with models that rely on plasma physics

Poorly written. How does one "propose" a "hypothesis"? A "theory" is proposed, hypothesis are stated.

I agree that "propose" and "hypothesis" redundantly imply uncertainty, but again, what's the alternative? "proposed theories and stated hypotheses" obscures more clarity than it adds. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is poorly written OR, it is cleverly slanted by twisting the language around such that what is being stated becomes confused thereby disabling the point being made.

Of course this is a slant war waged on both sides. What else is new? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

13. Although their theories are not accepted by the majority of cosmologists, proponents have argued that they explain observations more easily, without introducing the "new physics" seen in the big bang theory[5].

Poorly written. I have never seen "easily" used an a scientific publication. Hypothesis are not accepted because the are "more easily". Attributing this confused comment to the "proponents" is insulting among other things.

This is a howler. I seldom read scientific papers but Google Scholar shows 23 times more hits for "easily" than for "cosmology". Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

14. The level of detail in the development of big bang cosmology is not rivalled by that seen in plasma cosmology, evidenced simply by the quantity of scientific papers published regarding either approach.

Also poorly written. A perponderance of advocates does not constitute evidence of proof. As Thomas Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the prevailing paradigm is supported by the journals until such time it fails and the alternative is then accepted. The quantity of papers published is not evidence of accuracy. It is merely an idicator of who is in control.

It isn't proof, but grant the point it makes: it's harder to poke holes in plasma cosmology than the big bang, simply because the details of plasma cosmology are less defined. Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Also obvious to me, this entry is not populated by the free, but is authoritarian. And the only way to get rid of authoritarianism is by revolution.

Ooh, how violent! You just walked in and told a long-established participant he wasn't wanted, remember? Here, you seem to say it's your job to say the article is poorly written, and it's our job to guess what rewrite would please your majesty, or is that unfair? So, are you sure that a revolution against authoritarianism would be directed against the targets you expect? Art LaPella 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can keep shouting "poorly written", but I can't do much where you don't suggest an alternative. Is it this edit? If so, we need to match your proposed revisions to your individual complaints. I gave up when I found that your complaint number 3 was left uncorrected in your own edit. Art LaPella 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, read Structure of Scientific Revolutions, also known as paradigm shifts. I hope I did ok

Tommysun 05:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Setting the record straight

Two editors User:Tommysun and User:Elerner refuse to talk about meaningful NPOV edits meant to address concerns associated with the tag. They simply revert my edits and the edit war has persisted. Maybe protection might help? --ScienceApologist 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is wrong. ScienceApologist continually removes MY edits, I do not touch his. I am the one being wronged. ELerner is a plasma cosmologist, well known in his field. He does not support the big bang and has written a book The big bang never happened. ScienceApologist, by his own words, is a supporter of the big bang theory, yet he continually edits Plasma Cosmology such that it appears as a confused and incorrect presentation of the field. If this isn't conflict of interest, then there is no such rule. Wikipedia has been described elsewhere as being unreliable. Part of this is due to uneducated edits, I am sure. BUT a part of this unreliability also is the result of parties assuming editorial control on a subject, reverting all edits which they do not agree with. This is what is going on in our case. The end result is that some wikipedia entries have become political. If you read the entries for big bang, non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology, it becomes obvious that ALL the material fully supports the big bang and subsumes any and all other theories as "historical interest" only. So much for NPOV. Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have charged ScienceApologist with conflict of interest. He is, by his own words, a big bang supporter, yet he seems to consider himself in charge of editing the rival theory of Plasma Cosmology. Here is my proof:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC) And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist

Interesting, theory A becomes the one theory available,,, (and nothing else), by deleting the observations of Theory B...

Tommysun 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So what didn't you say? I'm pretty sure that means you agree ScienceApologist isn't "illegal". It probably means you also agree the previous heading's policy wasn't violated - VoiceOfAll didn't edit Plasma cosmology, even if ScienceApologist asked for the protection. The rule can't mean that an involved editor can't ask an administrator for protection, because that's the only obvious way for an uninvolved administrator to hear about the need for protection.

As for ScienceApologist's "conflict of interest", the real motives on both sides are complicated and obscured by arcane science, but there's no point trying to explain something so subtle if we can't get past the obvious observations. Once again, the reverse situation happened in November at Big Bang. You haven't said anything to distinguish why the plasma people can try to rewrite Big Bang but Big Bang people can't try to rewrite Plasma cosmology. Art LaPella 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Widowed references deleted

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)

I got you friend. Thanks Eric for the tip on "history". As you read, I submitted that ScienceApologist is a big bang supporter whose job is to confuse Plasma Cosmology. This is what I observed when I looked at the history of both the "nonstandard Cosmology" and Big Bang Theory. I observed that none other than ScienceApologist on both lists. This is conflict of interest.

Observe a little further back. Is this Big Bang edit also proof of conflict of interest? All of us were there Art LaPella 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from non standard Cosmology. (I tried to add to this list and it was taken out right away. But anyway...)

"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein."

This is not technically correct. Hubble did not discover anything. Hubble did not "observe" the so-called Doppler redshift effect. All Hubble did was add the speed of light, "c" to his equation. This created a Doppler redshift. Hubble did not believe that the redshift was Doppler caused. Sandage tells us that to his dying day, Hubble refused to believe that redshift meant expansion. He left it to the experts, he said, and then he maintained his own position. A non-standard point of view. There is no such a thing as "a fact" "known as Hubble's law." The cosmological reshift is an assumption. It is the assumption that "C" belongs in the equations. There never was an observation to indicate this. Redshift is in actuality is only one of n possible solutions. I charge whoever wrote this with acute misrepresentation

Now, how come you are in the history listings of both non-standard and big bang theory? What is it that you contributed to those lists? Tell us what you said about plasma theory over there? And are you the one who wrote "The non-standard theories are of historical interest only." Do you believe that? And who cleverly put "creation theory" (religion) at the top of the scientific list? Did you do that?

All three of these Wikipedia entries push Plasma physics to the back. The Universe is held together by gravity, but it works together by EMF which on the galactic scale is what is commonly called "Plasma."

Plasma is not something thing electrons flow through, come on, that's electricity. Plasma IS THE FLOWING of both ion and electrons outside an electrical ohmic conductor. EMF guys.

And about Eric's neutral (never knew that, thanks) atoms, in a plasma flowing, this is actually, in keeping with the principle of scaling, "plasma slurry". Did I spell that right? There is no reference because I just made this up.

Yes, you spelled that correctly. (Others misspell too, but they're no fun to pick on - they don't do non-existent grammar "corrrections" etc.) Art LaPella 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we populated by big bang proponents?

Quoting from big bang entry--

"Frequently, people come on to this talk page and tell many of the regular editors of the big bang article that their theory is phisophically misguided, unfalsifiable, Ptolemaic, or already falsified. I can assure you that it is none of these things." –Joke 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Trust me...

"The fox guarding the hen"

The big bang as an explosion of matter has been falsified, that's why they came up with inflation which is unfalsifiable, all 21 versions of them...And you won't discuss or even acknowledge the Tifft redshift. Why? Because without Doppler redshift there is no evidence of expansion and without expansion there was no big bang. And without the big bang all that is left is plasma. Tifft redshift is not going away guys, in spite of your efforts to delete it. Some day your big bang bag of hot air is going to burst and the likes of you will turn out to be the laughing stock of the century. The sad part is that you, and all the big bang gang, may take science down with you.

Tommysun 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we tone down the conspiracy hysteria and focus on debating the science? Jon 10:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

and here is the proof ==

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist

Tommysun 20:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[Removed my erroronious charge] Tommy Mandel 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

AND Plasma is not a theory, it is an observational fact, and if big bang does not include it, then that alone is proof that big bang is incomplete and if it is incomplete then it isn't completely true. Think about this guys, big bang is a point of view itself, a point f view from the perspective of gravity. Plasma is not in theoretical competition with gravity, it is a complementary. Just the fact that big bang does not incorporate Plasma is proof that the big bang theory is not complete and thus not correct. Plasma will never get rid of gravity, except maybe to explain gravity in terms of EMF - considering that all matter is like balls of electrons which attract eachother. The existence of plasma is itself proof that the big bang is not valid.

Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please pay attention? NO BIG BANG PROPONENT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OR IMPORTANCE OF PLASMA. The stars, the interstellar medium, the intergalactic medium, the primordial plasma, everything is plasma except for a few rocks and the universe between recombination and reionization in the big bang model. EVERYBODY agrees about that. The disagreements are about in what regimes, if any, gravity is more important than electromagnetic forces. –Joke 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely! --Bth 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure that sounds about right. I think Alfvén suggests that gravity become more important when particle size exceeds dust/grain size. See the section on Dynamics in Dusty plasmas. I also note that the Big Bang article mentions plasma four times. The Plasma cosmology article mentions plasma over 60 times --Iantresman 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please pay attention? NO BIG BANG PROPONENT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OR IMPORTANCE OF PLASMA.

Then how come "plasma" is not mentioned even once in the big bang section? And what about this quote by Jon?

"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. "

Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma is mentioned 4 times in Big Bang! And I'm not the first one to count them. Readers may disregard Tommysun's other stuff accordingly. Art LaPella 20:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By golly, you are right Art! I looked again and found the four mentions of plasma. I don't know how I could have missed them. Let's see what they say, I am quoting

"After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma..."and

"Because the early universe was in thermal equilibrium, the temperature of the radiation and the plasma were equal until the plasma recombined" and

" below 3,000 K at which point electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms and the primordial plasma turned into a neutral gas..."

That's very good, let's see if I got it right. First there was nothing, then this nothing expanded. After nothing expanded it became a quark-gluon plasma. After the quark-plasma recombined into nuclei, the nuclei and electrons combined to form atoms and the plasma turned into a neutral gas. That's very informative, I never knew that. Uhhh, you don't see anything wrong with this scenario?

Tommysun 02:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but I see something right: you're recognizing the obvious this time. Art LaPella 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So, where did the electrons come from? And if something can come from nothing in the beginning, what's to say that something can come from nothing today? Tommy Mandel 16:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A good reason why I've been avoiding determining technical questions is that I couldn't find an article explaining just when and how quarks combined into electrons, although scientists apparently duplicate such things by playing with cyclotrons. But I do know this is wrong: "'plasma' is not mentioned even once in the big bang section". We don't know where the Big Bang came from, or if it can recur every kazillion years. But if it came from nothing, that wouldn't upset the order of the universe any more than the way the rules of chess make pieces come from nothing, but only at the beginning of the game. Art LaPella 18:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened in the beginning sets the stage for everything afterwards. If something came from nothing then, it would be able to do that again. But there are LAWS of physics which state that energy cannot be created from nothing. If you read the big bang article literally, ALL the pkasma was converted into quarks, I question the gluon part because a gluon is a relationship particle, and without a connection, how can there be connectors? So after the quark plasma made the phase transition into protons and neutrons, NO MENTION OF PLASMA IS MADE. Tommy Mandel 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to convince me, you might try addressing what I say. This time, substiute "LAWS of chess" for "rules of chess" and reread why there isn't much point in me trying to debate gluons. Art LaPella 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't care what proponents say or think, what does the theory say? Citations, quotes, not hearsay, please.

Tommysun 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in carrying on this pointless conversation with you. Suffice it to say that you haven't found the fatal flaw with the big bang. The big bang says that plasma effects are important within their domains of validity, such as in stars, angular momentum transport in galaxies, galactic nuclei, etc.... They are not important for such large scale effects which are dominated by the clustering of dark matter, such as the formation of superclusters, clusters and galaxy haloes. I will provide sources for things that need to be sourced, but I have no interest in the utter inanity. –Joke 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I kind of like inanity. Plasma (physics) and Big Bang should be citations enough to prove that plasma was established science before Big Bang theory was developed. You knew that Tommysun, so why didn't you say so? Art LaPella 23:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You know the moon landing was faked right and and nasa are covering up the face on mars and and my uncle was abducted by aliens and if you listen real hard you can still hear the banjos Jon 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about the man on the moon, interesting that the rock formation on Mars looking like a face is resting on a perfectly formed symmetrical plateau, gosh, your uncle was what? Banjo's?Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"I have no interest in carrying on this pointless conversation with you. Suffice it to say that you haven't found the fatal flaw with the big bang."

- - So, you are a big bang supporter too? No wonder you find my stuff pointless, if you didn't you would have to find a new job. Things must be getting tough when one has to resort to ad hominum attacts, subtle or otherwise. Why aren't you with the big bangers? Why are you here? Why don't you go home? Your "widely accepted hypothesis" is based on assumptions. And slowly but surely is being hacked to pieces. See http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm - Doppler redshift is assumed. (which Hubble himself did not agree with) - Expansion is based on that assumption, and without direct evidence, is also an assumption. Backward extrapolation of expansion therefore is also an assumption. Leading to the hypothesis that all of the Universe started out at a point. Where did that point come from? A time when there was no time, a place where there was no place, and an event when probability was zero. Recall that the original big bang did not work out. In order to make this work, the point had to expand to the size of the Universe, and bigger, and without evidence is also an assumption. And then it stopped, how do you explain that? Gravity? If gravity stopped the expansion, how did the expansion accelerate this supposed gravitational mass to speeds vastly greater than the speed of light to begin with? Oh, the laws of physics didn't kick in yet, I suppose...And then how did it stop? Haven't heard the real answer to that one yet. As far as "evolution" is concerned, I don't believe in accidental "after the fact" conjectures, I am a synergy fan myself. You know, positive and negative in a relationship acts as a new whole...To listen to SOME of youse guys, I hear something like the Universe simply went "poof" and the rest just happened to happen. Tommysun 04:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice that I am happily spending my evening having quite a detailed discussion with Eric Lerner, including extensive sourcing. Perhaps it is you who is the obstruction to communication. –Joke 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun, if you could stop raving incoherently about all the evil and injustice in the world, that would be really great. Whether the Big Bang is in imminent danger of collapse or not in your view is not only entirely irrelevant, but also inflammatory and hindering the constructive dialogue that has been so long in coming. The last few days have been very promising here, please don't stuff it up with hysterical accusative hand-waving. Jon 05:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You forget that I wrote the memo to VoA which prompted him to suggest our present procedure. And it was my suggestion to outline the discussion as heads as we (some) are doing. Maybe I should shout out "your big bang model, starting with a poof is ending with a poof"As far as hand waving see http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2006.03.htm.Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You have had some good ideas. Too bad we have to wade thru so much merde de toro to get to them. Art LaPella 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Why are you here" etc. has been answered several times. You do have a habit of acting deaf. Art LaPella 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the bit about how plasma adherants tried in Nov to edit big bang, and now that means big bang can edit plasma? Yeah, I heard that. Tommysun 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can edit anything, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. We're here to try and make this article an honest, neutral portrayal of plasma cosmology, including the fact that it is not a mainstream theory and the majority of astronomers consider it to have major problems (if they consider it at all.) If you want everyone to write their own little page about their position and have it unassailable, then head on over to Wikinfo and it's world of "sympathetic point of view". Their plasma cosmology article is just a direct fork of WP's at the moment, just think of all the improvements you could make! --Bth 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you heard that, then why don't you distinguish why only pro-Big Bang edits should be restricted? You're also ignoring Joke's objection, which resembled the previous paragraph. Art LaPella 20:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't take long before I recognized the characteristic writing of a big banger --Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work.

May take a while but I will find out who put this into the aricle, betcha we know him very well.

Tommy Mandel 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And here it, is a revision by our favorite son justified as POV

"The study of astrophysical plasmas is part of the mainstream of academic astrophysics (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model). It is also distinct from (but plays a major role in) plasma cosmology, which states that plasmas are responsible for long-range interactions in the universe.

He removed the text shown in bold

Tommy Mandel 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the complete paragraph. The part in bold was added by the big bang gang

By the way, I am so over all of this pointless bickering. Apparently I was out of town when the free humour bypass operations were on offer. Can we just focus on the science? I enjoy the civilised and very interesting discussion above between Eric and Joke about the Hawking and Ellis proofs more than I enjoy rabid rhetoric, academic pissing contests and playground bully tactics. Jon 12:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Science is not for entertainment only. Nor is it for the faint of heart. You are obviously not a top scientist if you have to resort to comments like yours above. Tommy Mandel 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't really believe that either - it's at least not "obvious" that all "top scientist"s enjoy "pointless bickering". Art LaPella 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not need approval of others to know what I am about. Science often if not always progesses by going against the prevailing view. In my view, those who resort to ad hominum attacks obviously do so only because they are unable to find adequate counter arguments. So when someone attacks me personally, I KNOW I have made progress. It is more telling about the attacker than it is about me. Obviously, in a crowd of big bang advocates, everyone will be against me. But why are you here? Why would a big bang advocate place himself in the camp of the opposition and then try to modify what the opposition has to say?

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Please stop bickering and polarising the argument and instead discuss the science. You are the one who is talking about attacks, camps, opposition, and so on. There is perfectly valid and solid science in both "camps". The rub is much more to do with what initial assumptions are being made, with how much confidence, and why. It is always difficult to go back once these assumptions are made, because it seems such a waste of everyone's combined effort over the decades. It is easier to try to modify ones assumptions to accommodate new data rather than rewrite them from scratch. This is more of a human political issue, but your conspiratorial rhetoric will not help convince anyone any more than will SA's authoritarian editorial grandstanding. By the way, I am confident in my own ability to think for myself and draw my own conclusions, rather than rely on anyone else's opinion. I am by no means a top scientist, and even if I was it is irrelevant. Einstein was a patent clerk, and Roger Penrose gave us magical quantum synapses to explain intelligence. Go figure. It would be really great if this article could avoid descending into a troll's nest again. Jon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What's this Jon?

I wonder if they found Zero point energy yet... Tommy Mandel 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They did already, the serpent people from the planet Klattoo gave it to the US government in the 50s, they've been covering it up ever since. Jon 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain this Jon? Come on, you didn't want to climb back into the hole, but then you talk like this? What are you doing? Tommy Mandel

Oh lighten up, I was pulling your leg. Jon 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you let the big bang gang butcher plasma? Do you realize how much is at stake here? How many jobs? how many teacher positions? How many texts? The reputation of Western science? The security of our nation? All of that is going to go "poof" as in Big Poof! And all you got to say Oh, I was just pulling your leg... It's time to take a stand. And let me say right now, just so we don't have any misunderstandings, I hereby dedicate the rest of my life to the integrity of our science. The problem is that we are all divided, and it is because of the likes of some people who are here infiltrating our camp. I may be a newcomer to Wikistuff, and maybe even Plasma science, but I learn quick. If they leave and go home where they belong, I'll stay here. But if they don't, and if this crap keeps up, I will expand my efforts to other wiki entiries one by one. They may be able to delete my stuff from the main page, but they can't touch me here. I don't have to cheat, I don't have to denigerate, I don't have to twist and turn everyting around, I will simply quote real scientists, and in the process accumulate evidence, it is not hard thanks to Google.

Alas, the oppressors shall descend upon you again if you "simply quote real scientists" without regard for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Linking to the articles is a better idea. As for how much is at stake (assuming anyone really reads this stuff), an almost identical oration could be written to support the other side. Art LaPella 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, are you off your frickin meds or what? Please, go away; there are plenty of worthy causes just waiting for your limitless seething fervour over here. Jon 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that the best you can come up with Jon? I didn't start this fight, your friends started it, you and your friends have insulted me several times, but why you too? And I have yet to insult them back. Am I supposed to just sit back and take it without a word? I am trying to fight for Plasma cosmology, I am not fighting you. I just don't think it is ethical for bag bang people to come here and edit plasma cosmology, and especially with nonsense like "astronomers do not take plasma seriously" or however they put it. They say that I can edit big bang but that is not true, my stuff gets deleted within minutes, from big bang, non-standard cosmology and intrinsic redshift, and all I wanted to say is that there are observation which indicate that Doppler redshift is not proof of expansion, just kike Hubble himself said up to when he passed away. If Doppler redshift is not real, the entire house of big bang cards will fall, and that is going to hurt a lot of people, schools, texts, and the reputation of Western science. But they dug themselves into the hole they are in. And when big bang falls, which cosmology will rise to the occsion? Plasma is not a theory, Jon, it is a fact. It is not something one believes in or does not believe in, it is a fact. And the fact is that big bang does not consider it, contrary to Art's opinion that plasma is mentioned four times. The plasma that is mentioned is quark plasma, and once that plasma cools, there is no more reference to plasma, period. Just because almost everyone does not consider it is more telling about them than it is about plasma. Furthermore, it has been said many times in the literature, that great minds have always been battled by little minds, Einstein said that. I have no idea what is going through your mind when you attack me, but the more I am attacked the more I relaize I am on target. Tommy Mandel 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy's arguments in summary

Some of the participants seem to relish attacking me as a person. Notice, however, that hardly anyone has attacked my ideas, instead they have ignored them or deleted them. I am not going to go away, regardless of what you all tell me to do. To be honest, I am not a cosmologist, I am a writer. And I am a reader. I have read upwards of five hundred books on science. Unfortunately, I do not have a good memory which sometimes is a good thing. It is this "reader" aspect that compels me to enter into this discussion. Frankly, I don't believe much of what I read here. I don't find what I read here written in the literature like it is here. What I have read here, and in "non-standard cosmology" and "intrinsic redshift" and "big bang", is obviously slanted toward the standard theory. That puzzles me because the writing is supposed to be NPOV. I don't know what to think about this "NPOV" concept, especially in cases such as this where there are in fact opposing points of view. How can, for example, one be neutral about Democrats and Republicans? Or, in a technical sense. positive and negative chatges? Are we expected to talk about electricity as if it were neutral? I believe that what we should be striving for is "balance". Because a two volt positive charge on the one hand and a two volt negative charge on the other hand is neutral. But this neutrality is only achieved by both together. There is in fact a controversy about cosmology, it is not accurate to claim that there is only one theory and the other theory has been discredited. That is not being neutral in my opinion.

I have been accused of being inane and my arguments have been thought of as pointless. But let's take a look at them and let the reader judge for himself:

I argue that

(A)the definition of plasma is incorrect. Presently, plasma has been defined here as "Plasma, electrically conducting gas in which electrons are stripped away from atoms and can move freely..." Having worked in electronics in the Dept of the Navy for many years, I KNOW this is incorrect.

(B) It has been claimed here that Plasma is a gas. I suppose there are situations which plasma can be regarded as a gas, but historically plasma has been regarded as a fourth state or phase of matter. Eric informs us that neutral atoms can take part in a plasma flow, but dust can occur in air, and water in ice. Water in ice is not a solid. That is why I used the term "slurry". As a reader, calling plasma a gas would not be informative to me, it would be misleading if I didn't know better. Many, even NASA, have called plasma a gas. This does not make it right. You can call it "like a gas" and be in the ballpark, but to call it a gas is to ignore prior research. Ignoring prior research is not being scientific.

(C) A definition of terms is standard procedure in any article. Much confusion arises due to misunderstanding. It is better not to assume that everyone will know what a particular term means or how it is being used. What does the term "work" mean? A good dictionary will have at least one hundred different usages of "work." An encyclopedia, if it is a good one, will define the term immediately. It will not place it several sentences later.

(D) Good writing does not intermix catagories, It is not good writing to say the party was attended by John, Mary, other people and George.

(E) Plasma cosmology does not have a beginning. This is very controversial, at least here. But if you look at the science of plasma, it speaks of what is happening now. The idea of a beginning of plasma does not figure into the equations describing plasma. NOW does not have a beginning, but can anyone argue that NOW does not exist? Or that because it does not have a beginning it is not real? NOW is all that exists. My guess that the big bang theory has a beginning is only an assumption which I will discuss below.

(F) I am not saying that a galaxy or a star does not have a beginning. The Universe is a abstract entity. A star is very concrete to use Whitehead's term. The question I believe boils dow to does matter have a beginning? The big bang theory postulates that ALL matter was created at the beginning. This leads to several constraints and problems. I am not sure that anyone knows for sure how matter is created, but I heard that gamma rays brushing up against protons can create electron pairs.

(G) As I understand it, the big bang is very dependant on General Relativity, and it has been said that GR postulates a singularity. It is apparently this singularity from which comes the big bang moment. But I also read that GR does not specify how large this singularity has to be, nor when it must occur. I also read in one of the Inflation papers that, given this ambiguity, it is possible to have several singularities, and many can many mean a lot. So this particular version of Inflation theory postulates that singularities may be occuring all over the place. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that perhaps a singularity occured at the center of each galaxy.

(H) Does matter flow in or out of a galaxy? Does anyone know? Observations show matter flowing outward. A recent paper describing the x-ray halo around our galaxy admits that finding instances of matter flowing inward has been difficult. But finding matter/energy flowing outward is easy. Indeed almost every galaxy has matter flowing outward. A gravity based theory has to explain this in terms of matter flowing inward, hence the black hole accretion disk.

(I) A black hole hs never been observed. What is observed is a tremendous OUTWARD flow of matter. Proga teaches that a black hole is a conjecture devised to explain this outflow. He admits, nay, paints a 48 point type in red lettering "ASSUMED" over the paragraph first describing the black hole in his PPT presentation.

(J) Doppler redshift was not proved by Hubble. Hubble himself did not believe that redshift meant expansion. To his dying day he argued against that interpretation. He said that there must be an unknown reason for the redshift. Why isn't that stated nowadays?

(K) Which Inflation theory is correct? There are twenty one (21) different versions.

(L) Why was Inflation necessary to begin with? Because the original big bang didn't work. This is stated by all of the Inflation authors.

(M) I have a problem with Inflation in that how could space with matter in any form be accelerated to speeds required to create a universe larger than ours (flatness) and then stop? Even light doesn't do this. So what was it that was accelerated? And how did it just stop? I hear that gravity stopped it, well, then it must be ordinary matter, so how did it get accelerated to start with?

(N) I read that as the radiation cooled down a plasma made of quarks and gluons formed, Well, a quark is a particle theory "object", and the gluon is a "relationship force". So Methinks that when there are free quarks, there are no gluons. But what do I know.

(O)If light cooled down to form a quark-gluon plasma, where did the electrons come from?

(P) Remember that expansion was slowed by gravity meaning that matter was slowed. So, at some point we have matter/light still expanding at speeds vastly greater than light. OK, Newton's laws of motion apply, how can gravity pull this matter together when there is a vastly greater force moving matter in its original direction?

(Q) Galaxy Rotation. I am assuming that it is widely believed that matter is collected by a galaxy, that it is flowing inward such that a spiral galaxy may be likened to the whirpool seen in water moving down a drain in a sink. But there is an alternative interpretation, the matter could also be moving outward much like one of those fourth of July spinners.

(R) That there are colliding galaxies is based on the assumption that matter moves inward toward the center of the galaxy. Butif matter is moving outward, then the colliding galaxies are actually bifurcating galaxies.

(S) This is just a personal opinion, but I have never seen an instance of a galaxy which looks like matter is flowing inward.

(T) If gravity can form galaxies, how come we have such a thing as a globular cluster which doesn't look to me like the stars are moving inward?

(U) How come astronomers find stars/galaxies being ejected from galaxies?

(V) How come galaxies are pouring out tremendous outflows of matter some exceeding the speed of light?

(W)If, in the beginning, apace and primordial matter came from nothing, why can't this happen today?

(X)If matter/energy were created in the center of a star, then all of these questions are easily answered,

(Y)But what mechanism is responsible? What powers atomic particles forever? Why was Maxwell simplified?

(Z) Physicists such as Bohm and many others talk about a fifth dimension, a hyper dimension, a quantum ground, a Dirac Sea, a zero point energy, what Maxwell called the Aether, what I prefer to calll the INSIDE of empty space. Can this happen in the center of a galaxy?

I used up my time. Now, who can show me my errors in thinking?

Tommy Mandel 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If we did so again, would it matter? We've long since agreed to fix (A), for instance. At least you listened to the request to "discuss the science". Art LaPella 05:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh the Department of the Navy! Stand back everyone! This man is an expert! ha!--Deglr6328 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For example

Tommy Mandel 09:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude... I'm speechless. Nobody will bother answering 26 points like that, becuase most of them were solved in high school science. Not a personal attack, just that's how it is. We've been here for over 18 months chewing over much of this stuff. You've just got here... what can I say. Jon 11:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Eighteen months and all you can come up with is that plasma is made of free electrons? Eighteen months and you are just finding out about quantized redshift? Eighteen months and you still believe that everything came from nothing? Eighteen months and you still believe that matter flows into a galaxy? Eighteen months and you haven't gotten around to the ZPE yet? There is no question that all these questions have been answered in terms of the standard theory and thus are found in all high school texts. That doesn't make it true. Truth is not defined as what most believe by any means. I've studied Plasma for maybe five or six weeks and already I know it is not an alternative theory, it is a fact. I also know that a lot of what the likes of some of you assume to be factual is assumptive. I know most of the facts of big bang are at the root assumptions and conjectures. That Doppler redshift is an assumption, that expansion is an assumption, that Inflation is a conjecture and that Dark energy/matter is an ad hoc band aid to explain away the anomalies the standard theory produced. Anomaloes which falsify the theory if left alone. I know that GR is based on gravity and contrary to what your leader says, does not incorporate electromagnetics. I know that most of you do not support plasma as a cosmology. Acknowledge that and there will be no problem.

But when you come here pretending to be knowledgable editors, when actually all you are doing is confusing the issue by embroiling the real expert in essentially irrelavent detail, then the question of ethics arises, and of course I am a sonofabitch for pointing that out.

Do you realise I support plasma cosmology? Jon 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, you write: "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)"

But then you also wrote: "You know the moon landing was faked right and and nasa are covering up the face on mars and and my uncle was abducted by aliens and if you listen real hard you can still hear the banjos Jon 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"

No, I didn't know that the moon landing ws faked. I know that NASA does not help resolve the face on Mars thing. I certainly believe that a rock formation could look like a face, but let me ask you this -- how come it is placed on a perfectly shaped symmetrical plateau" Rock formation do not do that... No I didn't know your uncle was abducted by aliens. I don't know what banjo's have to do with this. Tommy Mandel 18:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion a lack of a sense of humour may have caused. Jon 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain the big bang gang got a good laugh out of that. I did too, but for different reasons...Tommy Mandel 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy, you have some interesting points, but too many for everyone to address at one time. I think the best approach, is to discuss one point at a time, AND, include a verifiable citation where appropriate, or requested. --Iantresman 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the one about the flow of matter in a galaxy?

"In the late 1950’s when the prestigious Armenian astronomer, Viktor Ambarzumian was president of the International Astronomical Union he said that just looking at pictures convinced him that new galaxies were ejected out of old. Even now astronomers refuse to discuss it, saying that big galaxies cannot come out of other big galaxies"

Ref: http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=10

"Observations increasingly demonstrate the spatial association of high redshift objects with larger, low redshift galaxies. These companion objects show a continuous range of physical properties - from very compact, high redshift quasars, through smaller active galaxies and finally to only slightly smaller companion galaxies of slightly higher redshift. The shift in energy distribution from high to low makes it clear that are seeing an empirical evolution from newly created to older, more normal galaxies. In order to account for the evolution of intrinsic redshift we must conclude that matter is initially born with low mass particles whose mass increase with time (age). This requires a physics which is non-local (Machian) and which is therefore more applicable to the cosmos than the Big Bang extrapolation of local physics. Ambartsumian's "superfluid" foresaw some of the properties of the new, low particle mass, protogalactic plasma which is required, demonstrating again the age-old lesson that open minded observation is much more powerful than theoretical assumptions. Since the ejected plasma, which preferentially emerges along the minor axis of the parent galaxy, develops into an entire galaxy, accretion disks cannot supply sufficient material. New matter must be created within a "white hole" rather than bouncing old matter off a "black hole".

Ref: astro-ph/9812144 From: Halton Arp [view email] Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:41:55 GMT (110kb)

Redshifts of New Galaxies Authors: Halton Arp Comments: Invited review talk at the 194th IAU Symp. on "Activity in galaxies and related phenomena", held in Byurakan, Armenia, August 17-21, 1998, Eds. Y.Terzian, E.Khachikian, and D.Weedman, PASP Conf. Series, in press

Now, obviously gravity will not do this, can plasma do that? There is an anamoly observed on our Sun, which is a star. Observation shows that the coronosphere can be hundreds of times hotter that the photosphere. How can cool make hot? Well, I have a pet theory about this one, Tommy Mandel 18:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess. Your pet theory is the Elecric Universe. Unfortunately this is the plasma cosmology page, which is neither a pet theory nor the electric universe theory, but feel free to discuss that theory over at its Talk page.

NASA says magnetic recoupling, I say magnetic whiplash...Did I hear you say something like "It would be really great if this article could avoid descending into a troll's nest again. Jon 02:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC) so what changed your mind?

Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, Arp's more recent publications are more interesting because they respond to his critics (particularly the Hawkins, Maddox Merrifield paper), and deal with large sample statistics of 2dF and SDSS redshift data. But really, periodic redshifts hasn't been addressed by plasma cosmology either, and although there is no reason to think it won't do so in the future, for now discussion of redshift periodicities probably belongs over at the Redshift page. Good luck with that... Jon 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Been there, ScienceApologist deleted, without discussion, what I had to say...Probably because quantized redshift and expansion are mutually exclusive...You know, I have noticed over the years that many theorists seem to want their pet theory to be all encompassing. Take plasma cosmology, is EVERYTING plasma? I don't think so, gravity does play a role too. But gravity also suffers in that it is trying to explain everything in terms of gravity when everyone know plasma plays a role too. Cosmology will end including both plasma and gravity. I tried to introduce generic cosmology but that was deleted too, Joke was in on that I think. I am a system theorist, which is a multidisciplinary science. Leading edge science is acknowledging to a degree that there are many aspects to any reality. Instead of trying to exclude others we try to sweep in others. Reality does not have the divisions our object oriented sciences have invented. I suppose the problem has to do with the "survival of the survivers" concept some believe in. One has to go to Russian science to find notions like symbiosis and synergy which in English means "working together." Tommy Mandel 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.--"Jimbo Wales From: NPOV and 'new physics' Fri Sep 26 13:08:16 UTC 2003 --DV8 2XL 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibilty of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation....learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact I can also define science another way. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Richard Feynman from "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"

Tommy Mandel 18:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

REFACTORED

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)

Widowed references deleted

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)

First of all, thanks to Ian for referencing the first quote. It was sorely needed and now it's done. Was that so hard?

Secondly, I continue to see refusal on the part of Mr. Lerner to address my points. They are, in turn:

1. According to Wikipedia:Summary style and article needs to be on point with its subject material. MHD is introduced in Eric's version of the article as an idea which is then said not to work for plasma cosmology. What's more, there is a laundry list of features that Alfven thought were important for "cosmic plasma" but there is no reference to this. In the interest of summary I removed it, but there was no discussion as to what the rationale was for keeping it other than pc advocates stubbornly claiming it was important without explaining themselves. I respectfully ask here for an explanation.
2. The Virgo consortium page has a void that is visible on the page of 35 h^-1 MpC observable. That's the same order of magnitude as the largest void known. Therefore the statement is correct and should not be removed.
3. The statement by Lieu supporting the Big Bang is relevant. There remains no supported reference for a pc advocate using his work to further their own. Without that, we cannnot claim it to be the case.
4. That the low-l moments are the least well measured is admitted by everyone who is honest in the field.
5. You cannot state that the development has been hampered without qualifying that it is the advocates who feel that way. It isn't an objective fact.
6. Advocates of alternative cosmology do include scientists from institutions, but also include unrelated folks who are unaffiliated. There was no criteria for deciding who would sign, so the NPOV way to put it is to refer to them as advocates of alternative cosmologies.

These points all seem very non-controversial to me. I respectfully ask that they be discussed rather than simply reverted.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 13:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved my comment to the Change 4 section below. Jon 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I can answer the first point. Regarding [Magnetohydrodynamics], Alfvén and co-author Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, wrote in their book Cosmical Electrodynamics (1952, 2nd Ed.): "It should be noted that the fundamental equations of magnetohydrodynamics rest on the assumption that the conducting medium can be considered as a fluid. This is an important limitation, for if the medium is a plasma it is sometimes necessary to use a microscopic description in which the motion of the constituent particles is taken into account. Examples of plasma phenomena invalidating a hydromagnetic description are ambipolar diffusion, electron runaway, and generation of microwaves". In other words, MHD may not lead to correct results when applied to low-density cosmic plasmas."

I suppose that a loose analogy would be the use of Newtonian physics to get a spacecraft to Mars, but that you need to introduce Einstein when speeds approach that of light. In other words, MHD (what Alfvén called a magnetic field description) often works, but sometime you need to use an electric field description, to model other phenomenon. There is an extension of MHD called Hall-MHD which is takes the electric field description into account.

As for the laundary list, let's put it back for now, add a reference, and I'll find one over the weekend. --Iantresman 15:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think we claim this in the article? --Iantresman 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Including the material on Alfven and MHD is important because it informs the historical development of plasma cosmology. It is the same as including (for example) a brief description of Newton to help explain how Relativity was developed, or describing continental drift to explain plate tectonics. Jon 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Just because two people see the same numbers and conclude two separate things based on what they believe to be true, doesn't mean Lieu's paper cannot be referenced for the data it contains. Just because it sticks in Joshua's craw is no reason for him to censor it from this article. Jon 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

From WP entry "Plasma (physics) "The dynamics of plasmas interacting with external and self-generated magnetic fields are studied in the academic discipline of magnetohydrodynamics." Tommysun 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric, van Flandern pointed out to me that the concept of a beginning is not necessarily a necessary in astronomy. I've been thinking about that and I wonder if the words "Plasma" and "cosmology" actually belong together.Would you email me please? I have a couple of things I would like t discuss with you.Tommysun 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Joshua has obtained protection of his version of the article. I am requesting unprotection of this page. I responded fully to Joshua(ScienceAplogist) continued reverts on the talk page. This response has been now moved to the archive since it was before March 9. Protection has simply served to take ScienceApologist's side. He is unsupported in his changes by anyone else's edits. He is getting his way as a minority of one by continually reverting and now getting the page protected with his changes in place.Elerner 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Please! I just want someone to talk about my edits! --ScienceApologist 13:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous--you know I've replied at length. Here is the exchange again:

Cleaning up Joshua's mess

I re-instated again the early history of PC which traces to Aflven's pointing out the limitations of MHD. I put back in "big bang theory" since the theory itself relies on new physics, such as inflation and baryon non conservation to be even vaguely consistent with obervations. I replaced Lieu's interpretation of his own data in his own paper, while eliminating Joshua's unverifiable quote.

I also eliminated Joshua's unfactual description of the open letter on cosmology. A glance at the signers list will show that it can not be described as 'plasma cosmology advocates". Would that there were several hundred of those! But there are not.

I'll return to the GR reference next time I'm at the library. No doubt we will now have a series of reverts by Joshua.Elerner 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I also removed the refernce to "largest voids" since the reference given does not refer to them. And I changed "most astronmers" believe WMAP problems are due to foreground to "some astronomers" becauses there is no reference to a peer-reviewed poll of astronomers and the issue is clearly actively debated with lots of papers on both sides.Elerner 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Eric's rationale and why I reinstated everything but one point:

* o + I don't mind the early history including Alfven's ideas about the "limitations" of MHD, but the prose did not indicate this and rather seemed to indicate that MHD was somehow part of plasma cosmology. Since it is really separate I removed the prose, and will try to instate sentences that indicate a divergeance from Alfven's much more famous ideas.

The prose is quite clear that the later work came out of Alfven's clear recognition of the limitations of the MHD approach, which he had developed. Anyone who is literate can see that.EL

Too bad the prose is irrelevant. EL ignores my point again. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The prose is only irrelevant in your opinion. It seems perfectly relevant to a description of plasma cosmology to me. Please describe here for our benefit why you think it is irrelevant. Jon 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we are writing according to Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no reason to include MHD here especially because pc advocates explicitly don't use it. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

* o + It's the Lambda-CDM model that relies on new physics. The Big Bang itself is strictly a GR-based expanding FLRW metric.

Nope, the Big bang includes inflation, which is new physics. Without inflation the Big Bang predicts a grossly anisotropic CBR because of the horizon problem and would be in gross contradiction to observations. Also the Big Bang requires baryon non-conservation, which is new physics. Otherwise nearly everything would have annihilated itself. EL

Nope, the Big bang need not include inflation. Besides expanded versions of Lambda-CDM include parameters for inflation as well. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

* o + The quote is totally verifiable as stated in WP:V.

Your quote refers to an entirely different paper by Lieu on a completely different subject. EL

Ostriker-Vishniak vs. Sunyaev-Zeldovich, touche. However, the gesture is later and the same: Lieu believes the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

* o + Many of the people on the list aren't even astronomers and some aren't scientists. The ones that we are interested with for this page are the plasma cosmology advocates.

Ridiculous. Read the list. An insignificant fraction have ever commented about plasma cosmology. Here are some of the institutions that signatories are associated with; Armenzano Observatory; Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University; Danish Space Research Institute; Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ; European Southern Observatory; Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics; High Altitude Observatory, NCAR ; Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica ; Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik; Observatoire de Lyon; Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Service d'Astrophysique, CEA; Space Research Institute, Russia; Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS; Università di Bari ; Cambridge University; College de France; Cornell University; Indian Institute of Technology; Padua University; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Jet Propulsion Laboratory--EL

Ridiculous snowballing. Many of the people who signed haven't ever taken an astronomy class in college -- the list is a meaningless charade. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

* o + The reference given does refer to voids of the order of magnitude of the largest.

Absolutely not true. Provide a quote. I read these references. --EL

Then you missed the fact that their voids were dozens of megaparsecs in length? --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

* o + The foreground arguments regarding low-ls seem to have the preponderance of papers in the community. There are astonishingly few papers written arguing that this represents a problem for vanilla banana. I often get the impression that Eric is a selective reader of the journals. Not surprising, but this kind of advocacy shouldn't be tolerated as an editorial excuse.

Prove it. Count the papers. There are tons that say the non-Gaussianity is in the real data and can't be MW contamination. Also, for your sentence to be true, it would have to be the opinion of "most astronomers" not most people who have published papers in the field. But it is not true in either case. --EL

Well, of the last 15 or so I read on astro-ph in the last year, I can recall less than half making a claim that the CMB is a local phenomenon because of this. --ScienceApologist 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I reverted since Eric has made some rather underhanded reverts as per his usual "game-playing". Please address the issues I outlined above rather than reverting from the hip. Talking about these things is always better than edit warring.:--ScienceApologist 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For the above reasons, I have reverted all of Joshua's reverts.Elerner 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

-- Elerner 03:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Elerner 17:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll notice that the last person to respond to each point was myself. Since then you have opted out of the discussion. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Colloquial usage Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. Tommysun 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages or images so that they cannot be modified except by other admins (the link "Edit this page" is replaced by a link "View source" when viewed by non-admins). This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances.

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)

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)

Attempt to reach consensus

Hi guys, Voice of All, who froze the page, say that we can edit it if we reach a consensus, which specifically does not have to include Joshua, if the rest of us agree. So I suggest that we agree on Tommysun's last version, with the exception of the definition of plasma. Can I try again here on that: "Plasma is a state of matter where electrons and ions can move freely, and carry currents."? What do the rest think?Elerner 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree in the sense that I'm not expressing a preference between ScienceApologist's version and Tommysun's last version, modified as described, and I expect that ScienceApologist will continue to be able to argue for his version. The only change I'm waiting to make is to delete an "of" as described in point #11 above. Art LaPella 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sound good to me. --Iantresman 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been avoiding editing this page for a while. I have a few comments:

• Would Tommysun stop using big words like "illegal", "conflict of interest" and "dereliction of duty" until he has some more experience with Wikipedia? They aren't helping. Big bang advocates can edit this page if they damn well want to, just like any other page on Wikipedia. The only relevant policies are neutral point of view and verifiability.
• I certainly don't agree that we should revert to the last version by Tommysun.
• I think Eric's definition of plasma is fine, except that the phrasing is slightly awkward and comma incorrect.
• I think changing offered to proposed is fine.
• I have no opinion on the short list in the cosmic plasma section.
• As for "including the largest walls and voids" it is a complicated technical issue. Certainly simulations of linear structure seem to work up to those scales, as is seen in the power spectrum. The issue of voids involves the hairy gastrophysics of bias and halo occupation as well as statistical issues involved in defining and identifying voids. This whole argument seems a little specious to me, given that the plasma universe doesn't agree with the SDSS power spectrum, but the standard big bang cosmology does.
• I don't like either version of the Lieu statement. I suppose it doesn't really matter what Lieu believes now, only that he says the SZ effect is too small and that the plasma cosmologists attribute that to the nearby origin of the CMB. I must say, I find the argument that this has anything to do with plasma cosmology is misleading, given that these cosmologists don't even quantitatively know their predictions for the CMB (i.e. the peak structure). I do wish you would leave the quote in the footnote and merely paraphrase.
• There is nothing POV about SA's version of the low-l multipole controversy: "Since the low-l multipoles are the ones with the most systematic errors, it has been pointed out that there are likely to be due to uncertainties in the removal of the foreground from the CMB." Surely you can't argue that they aren't the ones with the most systematic errors, when in the big bang model the are plagued by cosmic variance and foreground contamination?
• I don't like TS/EL's version of the closing paragraph. Words like bias and hampered are intrinsically POV. The sentence "However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded." is awful, because it implies that a lot of scientists from leading astronomical institutions advocate for alternatives to the big bang. Better would be "including some" or something else entirely.

–Joke 01:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Joke on this one including where he questions my versions. Eric's definition of plasma is fine. I would like some discussion on my other points outlined above. In particular, I think we need to decide whether a detailed account of MHD's history is warranted and we need to remove the claim about Lieu's study supporting plasma cosmology if we do not have a verifiable reference. Other than that, I think that my version is pretty much in-line with Joke's suggestions (subject to machniations over voids) but I'm not here to speak for Joke. What is clear is that as of right now we don't have consensus, but at least people are posting to the talkpage, so that's an improvement.

I also think that User:Tommysun needs to read a bit more about Wikipedia before going to town with his arguments. As such his support of versions needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I know that Eric and Ian are at least aware of Wikipedia policy, but I'm not sure User:Tommysun is. In particular, I don't know if he is aware of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

--ScienceApologist 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with VoA's proposal. I submit that Joshua supports the big bang interpretation and his vote here in Plasma Cosmology should be taken with a grain of salt too. He is right that I know very little about Wikipedia, but I do know how to write. I concede that my keyboard doesn't.

I propose that we start at the beginning. The beginning sets the stage so to speak, and it is very important to the reader. It cannot be assumed that a reader is familair with the subject and thus will be able to "read in" the facts appropriately.

For example, the present definition of plasma is actually a definition of electricity. Plasma is different from electricity in that it usually has both ions and electrons flowing as a current without a conductor.

I propose that each proposal up for vote have it's own heading. Therefore, allow me to begin with my suggestion

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma is a freely flowing electrons and ions. The Universe consists mainly of plasma, which is found in our Sun, the stars, the galaxies, and throughout space. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for galaxy formation, the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure and, in general, the development of the universe. Plasma, as (a)cosmology, is conventionally thought of as a non-standard cosmology as opposed to the standard big bang theory.[1] Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Won't work. Plasma is not a freely flowing current. 'Plasma (physics)' starts with In physics and chemistry, a plasma is an ionized gas, and is usually considered to be a distinct phase of matter., which is much better. "The Universe consists mainly of plasma, ..." is probably too strong: "Most of the matter in the Universe is thought to be in the plasma state" is better. How about this:

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model based on the electromagnetic properties of plasma, an ionized state of matter. Most of the matter in the Universe is thought to be in the plasma state. Advocates of plasma cosmology have offered explanations for galaxy formation, the cosmic microwave background, the large scale structure of the Universe, and, in general, the development of the Universe. Plasma cosmology is considered by both proponents and critics to be a non-standard cosmology in competition with the currently better accepted Big Bang cosmology.

zowie 03:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unclear on the context for the sentence "Most of the matter in the universe is thought to be in the plasma state." Does this have an implicit "In plasma cosmology" at the beginning? Or is it supposed to be a statement of an "uncontroversial" fact accepted even by plasma cosmology's detractors? If the former it should be made clearer, and if the latter, it's misleading because, of course, in the modern cosmological synthesis most of the matter in the universe is dark matter and we have next to no clue about its physical properties (but it can't be a plasma as it doesn't interact through the EM force). "baryonic matter" in place of "matter" would be fine, though. --Bth 11:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Can we really use wikipedia as a source? Read further and they clear it up somewhat. Sorry I cannot trust wikipedia's definition of Plasma. Plasma is not a gas, it is a current flow. You don't fill a neon bulb with plasma.

If it were a gas, then it couldn't be called a fourth state of matter. Are we going to change that notion of a fourth state too? Also, is matter (in general) and plasma the same thing? Tommysun 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma is not a current flow. That's just plain wrong. Current can flow in a plasma, but the current flow itself is not a plasma.

The definition of a gas is something that follows gas laws. Plasma follows gas laws (with apologies to certain conduction effects) so I don't see why describing plasma as a gas is so problematic. Would you prefer it if we described it as a "compressible fluid"? --ScienceApologist 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. Is a neon bulb filled with plasma? Or does plasma flow when you light it? Everyone else calls it a fourth state of matter, why do you want to change that?

On earth we live upon an island of "ordinary" matter. The different states of matter generally found on earth are solid, liquid, and gas. We have learned to work, play, and rest using these familiar states of matter. Sir William Crookes, an English physicist, identified a fourth state of matter, now called plasma, in 1879. Plasma temperatures and densities range from relatively cool and tenuous (like aurora) to very hot and dense (like the central core of a star). Ordinary solids, liquids, and gases are both electrically neutral and too cool or dense to be in a plasma state. Plasma consists of a collection of free-moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma. The energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

from http://www.plasmas.org/rot-plasmas.htm Tommysun 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On Earth, a lot of energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms because the densities are so high, however in space with much lower densities the amount of energy needed to maintain a plasma is miniscule by comparison. When recombination times are larger than ionization times, that's when you get a plasma. Current flow is a totally separate issue. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun, I think SA and I know perfectly well what a plasma is. Perhaps if you are having trouble understanding, and don't find us credible, you should ask one of the users of Wikipedia who are professional plasma physicists. At least three come to mind: Art Carlson, Craig DeForest and Eric Lerner. –Joke 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What I have trouble understanding is why are big bang people over here? For that reason I DO NOT FIND SA credible, I am neutral about Joke, and I find Art to be honest. Sometimes, when one is deeply involved in a subject, the obvious gets taken for granted, and subsequently often is ignored. The whole idea of this work is to define plasma and then elaborate. So when the expert defines plasma as "an ionized state of matter" well, believe me, the reader will have no clue about what he means. And doesn't "ionized" exclude electrons, hmmm? Tommysun 05:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a friend too...http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/#plasma

Plasma: Sometimes called the fourth state of matter, a plasma is far from being a clearly defined physical state and the only common feature in the various situations is that to some degree free charges (i.e. ions and electrons) are present.Generally, one has to distinguish between the microscopic and the collective properties of a plasma. The former are individual particle processes like Coulomb Scattering, Radiative Recombination or Inelastic Collisions, whereas the latter are for instance given by Plasma Polarization Fields, Plasma Oscillations or Debye Shielding. Collective processes can occur only if the Plasma Frequency is higher than the Collision Frequency. Apart from very high volume densities like those encountered in fluids, solids or the interior of stars, this is however usually fulfilled. For the latter example there is the additional property that, due to the high temperature in combination with the high density, no bound electronic states can exist and therefore no radiative processes either.

Tommysun 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing for "current flow" I have taken that out. What I am arguing is that plasma is not a gas.

Typo patrol on Tommysun's paragraph: 1. Remove the "a" in the second sentence. 2. "as (a)cosmology" should be "as a cosmology" or "as cosmology" - or if the parentheses are accomplishing something I don't see, "as (a) cosmology" (note space). 3. This is not to discourage bigger rewrites or other versions, including the existing version. Art LaPella 05:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not intended as a suggested introduction. But to clarify: Plasmas may be solid (crystaline)[1] as well as gaeous. Plasmas do NOT follow gas laws (although gas laws may sometimes approximate); "Maxwell equations for electromagnetism and the plasma Boltzmann equation are the basic equations for studies of electromagnetic systems of which plasmas are a prime example" [2]. A plasma is a substance in which sufficient atoms or molecules have been ionized allowing charges to flow freely. A partially ionized gas, in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized, may be considered to be, and behave as a plasma (there are other factors too). For example, a 1% ionized gas may be highly electrically conductive. A plasma may also contain unequal numbers of oppositely charged particles (eg. particle beams). --Iantresman 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A plasma is an ionized gas, in the sense that the component particles interact only via collision and the bulk electromagnetic field. The former yields gas properties; the latter yields MHD. The work at Sandia and UCSD on pure-electron "plasmas" that form quasicrystals is interesting precisely because it explores the limits of what the bulk electromagnetic field can do in the absence of any small-scale electromagentic forces (such as the van der Waals forces that hold together iodine, the hydrogen bonding that holds together liquid water, or the tiny dipole attractions that hold together solid salt). Sorry to be a pedant here, but plasmas are not solid. Matter that retains its shape and has free charge carriers is called a conductor, and does not follow MHD - though its charge carriers might loosely be described as a stabilized plasma (as in the jellium model of the solid state). Neither are plasmas liquid. The main characteristic of a liquid is that it does not retain its shape but does retain its volume due to continuous short-range interactions between its constituent particles. The key here is that the interactions are continuous and short-range, rather than manifestations of the bulk electromagnetic field on scales much larger than the particles themselves.

Folks should not have a conceptual problem with a state of matter being defined in terms of the other ones. For example, many folks here are probably fans of superfluids. The superfluid state is a modified liquid in which the atoms become a Bose-Einstein condensate and hence manifest macroscopic quantum behavior -- just as the plasma state is a modified gas in which the atoms are ionized and hence couple to the electromagnetic field. The whole "state of matter" description is somewhat colorful verbiage anyhow, simply emphasizing that plasmas behave very differently than non-ionized gases. If one is going to be pedantic, "plasma" is better described as a phase of matter, in the same sense that Ice IV is a phase of water -- plasma is just more radically different from the gas phase than Ice IV is from Ice I.

Sorry to be a pedant here -- just trying to keep everything consistent with reality (you know, the stuff outside WP). zowie 14:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alfvén described a difference between a pseudo-plasma (ionized gas), and a real plasma, which is partly conceptual. He said "The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although in reality synonymous, convey different general notions. The first term gives an impression of a medium that is basically similar to a gas, especially the atmospheric gas we are most familiar with. In contrast to this, a plasma, particularly a fully ionized magnetized plasma, is a medium with basically different properties: Typically it is strongly inhomogeneous and consists of a network of filaments produced by line currents and surfaces of discontinuity. These are sometimes due to current sheaths and, sometimes, to electrostatic double layers."[3] --Iantresman 12:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting suggestion

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)

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)

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)

I think, SA, what VoA was trying to do is prevent you from stopping us...

Eric, why don't you simply make a list of major headings to be discussed, and then we all can edit/discuss whatever we want whenever we want. It may be useful to include the sentence or paragraph as the first entry under each heading as the working edit.

Tommysun 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well let's try it out, shall we?

As User:ScienceApologist notes, we should take note of this from the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page:

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)

Change 1)

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)

• I have no idea why it was even removed. I agree Jon 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's just seven words. Since plasma cosmologists seem to consider him the Father of Plasma Cosmology, leave it in. --Art Carlson 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, this is verifiable too. [4] --Iantresman 11:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• What part of Birkeland's work (other than the simply demonstration of plasma's existence) is used by plasma cosmology advocates? --ScienceApologist 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say his work in developing the idea of Birkeland currents... Jon 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Don't care –Joke 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Change 2)

Reinstate: "- Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas.These include:

• Scalability of plasma
• Birkeland currents, electric currents that form electric circuits in space
• Plasma double layers
• The cellular structure of plasma

Justification: This is all described at great length in the Cosmic Electrodynamics book, which is referenced in the notes. Alfven thought these were the most important features of plasma behavior on cosmic scales.Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?

• wording is confusing to me, removing "many" sounds better to me anyhow

but agree Tommysun 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this material removed? I agree Jon 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's a laundry list of concepts that keep popping up, i.e. are important to plasma cosmologists. Putting it at this location provides some historical perspective. Don't know what's wrong. Leave it in. --Art Carlson 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• All verifiable in Alfvén's book, Cosmic Plasma (1981) --Iantresman 11:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• What I was looking for and was never provided was a context for these attributes. Alfven may have said they were important, but how do Plasma cosmology advocates apply their importance? I see how scalability, double layers, and cellular structure were used, but Birkeland current and critical ionization velocities get no mention anywhere in the article after this as important parts of plasma cosmology advocates ideas. Just because Alfven said they were important doesn't justify inclusion -- we need to provide readers context. --ScienceApologist 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• So we need to expand the section on Force free filaments, or is it adequate?
• Regarding critical ionization velocity (which Alfvén called critical velocity), Alfvén wrote "The sun is supposed to be formed from a dusty interstellar cloud by processes discussed above. It has a certain mass, spin, and magnetization. Residuals from the cloud form cloudlets which fall in towards the sun and, according to the plasma cosmogony, they are emplaced in those regions where they reach the critical velocity. Angular momentum is transferred from the sun. These processes are governed by plasma effects, of course in combination with mechanical effects."[5]

Alright, but what does this have to do with cosmology? --ScienceApologist 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Lerner wrote: "Abstract: An explanation for the observed scale invariants in the universe is presented. Force-free magnetic vortex filaments are proposed to play a crucial role in the formation of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and stars by initiating gravitational compression. The critical velocities involved in vortex formation are shown to explain the observed constant orbital velocities of clusters, galaxies, and stars." [6]

I'll buy this one for Birkeland currents and Perrat's model. Thanks for the round-up. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Williams wrote: "Such particle distribution models are expected to be applicable to a variety of astrophysical situations such as in the accretion column of X-ray pulsars and in magnetized plasma where the critical velocity phenomenon plays a role [26]."[7]

Again, astrophysics != cosmology. So I think it is clear that until we have some justification for critical ionization velocity, this has to be left out. Any objections? --ScienceApologist 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should add a paragraph on the Critical ionization velocity? --Iantresman 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

At least let us know where it applies to cosmology.

• Don't care –Joke 15:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Change 3

Delete: "(including the largest walls and voids)"

Justification: The cited references show that the largest voids are 100 Mpc. Even by Joshua's own account, the largest voids in the simulations are 35 Mpc (and I see no mention of that number in his references.) 35Mpc is, by a factor of 3, less than 100 Mpc, so the statement is not verifiable (nor true) and needs to go. Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?

Hold on a second! We need to take Joke's salient criticism into account. The problem is comparing simulations to reality is never easy. I propose an alternative: remove mention of problems generating the largest voids altogether as there isn't consensus in the community how to pair observations with simulations. For this reason, 35 Mpc is not a reasonable comparison because 100 Mpc voids may correspond to 35 Mpc voids in the simulation, it isn't clear how to match the two of them. All that's clear is that the simulations and observations have voids of roughly the same order of magnitdue. --ScienceApologist 12:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know yet...Question: how does gravity form voids?Tommysun 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Virgo Consortium simulations, assuming dark matter, dark energy and inflation to get it to work, here.

A region of lower density can be looked at as being surrounded by other regions of higher density. These regions of higher density suck the matter out of the void, making it even emptier. --Art Carlson 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I know enough about this particular point to vote - abstain for now Jon 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• I favor a compromise wording that makes the degree of agreement or disagreement evident. Something like, The largest observed void is 100 MPc in diameter, while the largest void found using standard theory in simulations is 35 MPc. Lerner views this as a serious discrepancy, while many astronomers see it as reasonable agreement. --Art Carlson 09:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked an expert today, and he said there were no surprizes. The simulations do no reproduce the largest observed voids because they (the simulations) are not large enough. They do produce voids at the largest scale they have available. So it is wrong to say that simulations have reproduced the largest voids observed, but it should be made clear that most experts do not share Eric's opinion that there is a problem. I still favor a compromise, but the wording needs to be worked out. --Art Carlson 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Did your expert happen to mention whether 100 Mpc voids have been observed? –Joke 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We didn't get into details, but the void (astronomy) article lists 8 voids with diameters between 110 and 163 Mpc. If you can't believe Wikipedia, who can you believe? ;-) --Art Carlson 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I hadn't looked at that page. I haven't read the Einasto paper cited in that article, but it seems to be the source of my confusion below. Einasto et al. seem to use "cluster-defined voids" which seem to be defined quite differently (and much larger) than voids are defined with one of the void finding algorithms in galaxy surveys. For example, the article (and presumably the paper) gives the size of the Boötes void as 110 Mpc (given as 78 h^-1 Mpc in the paper) whereas both the paper by Hoyle below and the book by Kolb and Turner give it as 50 h^{-1} Mpc. The problem with voids is they don't seem to be empty enough, so it is hard to define a size. –Joke 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Until recently, simulations have been of relatively small chunks of the universe in which you wouldn't expect to see the biggest voids -- this is where Art's "reasonable agreement" comes from (the profile of void sizes inside the sim is what you'd expect for a randomly selected chunk of the universe of the same size as the simulation), and if we do go for the compromise it'd be good to explain this. Unfortunately I can't find a good reference right now for voids in recent large scale sims. By inspection of the big picture of Virgo's Millennium Simulation, there are almost certainly 100 Mpc voids in there, but next time I'm near some journals I'll track a reference down so we can update the article's cites. (Note that that picture's an unfolding of a 500 Mpc to a side simulation box into a 15 Mpc thick slice.) --Bth 10:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Compromise: "Recent cosmological simulations of the ΛCDM model produce walls and voids up to 35Mpc" (if indeed that figure is verifiable) --Iantresman 11:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is my comment from above

  As for "including the largest walls and voids" it is a complicated technical issue. Certainly simulations of linear structure seem to work up to those scales, as is seen in the power spectrum. The issue of voids involves the hairy gastrophysics of bias and halo occupation as well as statistical issues involved in defining and identifying voids. This whole argument seems a little specious to me, given that the plasma universe doesn't agree with the SDSS power spectrum, but the standard big bang cosmology does.

  In particular, I think arXiv:astro-ph/0312533 explains this rather well:

  Comparison of [Void Probability Functions] measured for the 2dFGRS with the distribution of simulated dark-matter halos of similar number density indicates that voids in the matter distribution in CDM simulations are not empty enough. However, semi-analytic models of galaxy formation that include feedback effects yield VPF’s that show excellent agreement with the data.

  This is the void problem as I understand it. I'm not convinced there is any problem with 100 h^-1 Mpc voids. In the introduction, the paper says:

  The giant void in Boötes was discovered more than twenty years ago and the existence of voids was confirmed by subsequent larger surveys at a variety of wavelengths. The size of the largest voids (D ~ 30–50 h⁻¹Mpc) in these earlier surveys was of the same order as the characteristic depth of the surveys, which allowed speculation that even larger such structures might be found. Deeper redshift surveys, for example, the Las Campanas Redshift Survey, confirmed the ubiquity of these structures, but did not detect larger voids. The recently-completed 2dFGRS and the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey have the depth, areal coverage, and complete sampling of the galaxy distribution necessary to more precisely quantify the distribution of voids.

  So as of 2003 it was certainly not clear that there are 100 h^-1 Mpc voids. Their redshift limit is z = 0.138 which corresponds to 398 h^-1 Mpc. Whether this is sufficient depth to identify 100 h^-1 Mpc voids in a fractal distribution is not clear to me. However, the largest voids they identify are 25 h^-1 Mpc (see figure 3). I haven't been able to find anything for SDSS yet. The Einasto paper [8] (E. Saar et al., Astron. and Astrophys. 393 1–23 (2002)) or its predecessors never actually go to the trouble of identifying a void, so far as I can tell. They identify a peak in the correlation function of clusters at the scale 128 h^-1 Mpc. There are three points to make about this.

  • identifying a peak in the correlation function at that scale doesn't indicate that voids of that size actually exist. It is not the same as running voidfinder on some data. I think the authors of these papers would agree with that: an underdense region is not a void.
  • the "statistical significance of the oscillations is not high" (Saar, 2002).
  • the existence of a peak flat out contradicts the fractal universe (as does the SDSS peak, which is statistically significant).

  So probably these statements need drastic improvement. I don't think any of this will be clear until someone takes a thorough look at voids in SDSS, but for right now, it seems to indicate to me that the only voids whose existence is on rigorous footing are those smaller than 50 h^-1 Mpc –Joke 15:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment in case it is not obvious, let me say that I am strongly opposed to voting on this particular topic until we get some agreement on the underlying issues. –Joke 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If science were conducted this way, we all wound have to be good on Sundays/ Tommy Mandel 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with those three. Please vote now.Elerner 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology's basic assumptions

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)

The second and third, however, don't strike me as all that scientific at all. I don't really see how they help to make testable predictions (OK, the third makes the "prediction" that "the universe is evolving", but that's not exactly very specific). They're more like the sort of argument-from-incredulity stuff that I'm more used to seeing from Creationists as reasons why the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and unbelievable.

As far as I can see, the "EM and gravitation are equally important on the largest scales" assumption is enough to get the important predictions of plasma cosmology in its broadest terms. The others just make the theory look cranky to be honest, particularly number two which just looks like a huge bit of begging the question: "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". For all that I'm deeply sceptical of PC, I do believe that (unlike Creationism) it's ultimately an honest intellectual enterprise, but this is exactly the sort of nonsense that Creationists indulge in.

Are the latter two assumptions just badly stated? Or are they not in fact fundamental principles of plasma cosmology as a theory, but rather philosophical reasons why its supporters are attracted to it and dissatisfied by the Big Bang? Surely, if plasma cosmology is a science, it should stand or fall on whether it's the best available explanation of the evidence, not whether it's philosophically pleasing?

Oh, and in the caption of the snapshots from the Perratt galaxy formation sim, shouldn't "kps" be "kpc"? --Bth 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "we assume the Big Bang isn't true, therefore we have proved the Big Bang isn't true". how come the big bang theory can assume Doppler redshift to be true, and therefore the big bang is true?

Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Evolution" is a biological term. And that theory is questionable itself when "selection" is regarded as an evolutionary principle because, listen to this, "Selection is AFTER THE FACT." Tommysun 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Why, because selection is in fact "after the fact"? Need I explain this? Selection does not occur until AFTER the evolutionary integration occurs. So, what is the evolutionary integration? Random chance? Mutation? And that's it? Hardly, symbiosis, synergy, wholistic systems is more like it.--Tommysun 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Second assumption

Sorry, I still don't understand why the second assumption is in and of itself an important underpinning of plasma cosmology. Surely plasma cosmology merely provides an explanation (for those who find it satisfactory) that doesn't require the Big Bang? Thing is, I don't see why you couldn't have a version of plasma cosmology that did give a finite age for the universe. --Bth 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern views cosmology as "eternal" like Schroedinger with his view of NOW, "having no beginning and no end," How? Someone, lost the reference, said that GR requires a singularity, but, the person wrote, GR does not stipulate how large the singularity has to be nor does it limit the number of singularities, In fact one of the 21 versions of Inflation theory has mini-singularities all over the place. Does this mean that GR would be satisfied if a singularity occured during the development of each galaxy? Maybe? So, where does the matter come from? Plasma. Seems that some physicists believe that there is a hidden dimension of space, a fifth dimension, what rienmann and Maxwell called the fourth dimension. I call it the INSIDE of empty space. How does maxwell do that? I wish I knew, but so far I have been led to the displacement currents. What are they? Maxwell's equations are not the original equations he formulated, instead they are simplifications created by Heaviside. What he simplified out was the quaternions, which, I think, explained how EMF persists in space. So, plasma is connected to a dimension inside space, which always existed, and which is the source of the energy within a galaxy/star.Therefore matter is streaming OUTWARD from any galaxy, exactly as observed. No need for fantastic creations from nothing ending in nothing.

Tommysun 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me fixing your formatting, it was getting rather hard to read jumping all over the page.) Tom Van Flandern (and you) are perfectly entitled to view cosmology as eternal. I just don't see that it's a necessary precondition for plasma cosmology. Putting it up front like that is putting the cart before the horse, and makes plasma cosmology look like a mish-mash of anti-Big-Bang positions, rather than a theory in its own right. I'm trying to write for the enemy here, dammit! The sensible way to present it would be "plasma cosmology posits X, Y and Z and thus does not require the universe to have a finite age to accord with the observations". (If indeed it does accord with the observations.) Oh, and GR in and of itself doesn't require a singularity; it's perfectly possible to construct toy GR models with all manner of properties. --Bth 10:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the second assumption is not as important as the first, but I guess it's included to differentiate itself from Big Bang cosmology. You could have a version of plasma cosmology which has a finite age, if you are prepared to accept certain phenomenon in plasma cosmology, and certain phenomenon from Big Bang cosmology. No-one has ownership of plasma cosmology, nor Big Bang cosmology--Iantresman 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it doesn't help to list it as a basic assumption, at least not so strongly stated -- to my way of thinking, it sets plasma cosmology up solely as "not the Big Bang", rather than a theory in its own right. Maybe a statement like "It is possible for the universe to be infinite in age and variable in time" would be a less strident version of the last two assumptions that still gets across the differences. --Bth 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And yes, it should be kpc. My mistake. --Iantresman 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only raised it 'cos I couldn't just fix it with the page in protection. --Bth 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to voting on changes

Well I see we are unprotected by Jossi again and that Joshua is going along with the crowd. So let's move right along and see what everyone thinks about the rest of Joshua's disputed changes.

Change 4

Reinstate Lieu's direct quote:

Lieu concluded that, taken at face value, the data indicated that there was "no strong evidence for an emission origin of the CMB at locations beyond the average redshift of our cluster sample (i.e. z ~ 0.1)." This is as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contradiction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CMB originates at extreme distances.

Justification: This is a direct quote from the article in question. Joshua's quotes are from an EARLIER interveiw relating to an entirely different paper by Lieu. Lieu's comments in that interveiw are not about his own beliefs, it is about what he feels are the implications of the work he was interveiwed about, which was entirely different than the work we are concerned with here. There is just no justification for dragging that other work in by the tail and excluding Lieu's own views about the signifigance of THIS work.

Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC) agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In Lieu's conclusion to his paper Detailed WMAP/X-ray comparison of 31 randomly selected nearby clusters of galaxies - incomplete SZ Effect, he states:

"Unless there remains performance issues to do with WMAP which have hitherto been overlooked, the question concerning whether the CMB is truly the definitive piece of evidence that proves the correctness of the Big Bang model is hereby raised in a serious way by this research team for the first time. If WMAP has hidden problems that prevents it from properly charting degree scale structures, one must then ask to what extent can the acoustic peak information be trusted."

Lieu is questioning a fundamental assumption of the Big Bang, that CMB is of cosmological origin. Jon 12:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like the current quote to be removed, but I think the other quote is fine in the footnote and we can just paraphrase. Lieu's paper has not been published yet, incidentally, and I think just about every cosmologist or astrophysicist would interpret Jon's quote as a bit of dramatic self-aggrandizement. –Joke 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why paraphrase on a controversial issue, when we have a short quote?Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree Tommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it is not that big a deal, but we don't have quotes elsewhere in the article. I still don't see how this quote can be said to be "predicted by the plasma model" when the detailed angular structure of the CMB is not known in plasma cosmology. –Joke 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contradiction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CMB originates at extreme distances. --> this prose is unacceptable unless a source for this can be cited. --ScienceApologist 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Change 5

Reinstate "Some astronomers believe that the alignments ..." in the paragrpah about the WMAP alingments.

Justification: I was able to find only TWO papers in arXiv claiming that these results were due to foreground in the two years since this was first reported. Maybe there are more. But in just the last month, there were two papers completely ruling out foreground contamination. So saying that "some astronmers " think this when it cleary is not a majority veiw, seems fair.

Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees? Elerner 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) AgreeTommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Citations, please. As best as I can tell, the Slosar and Seljak paper doesn't even have two citations in the last months. Nowhere does it say that most or even all astronomers think that. I think that SA's version is a simple, NPOV statement of the facts. Here it is again:

  Since the low-l multipoles are the ones with the most systematic errors, it has been pointed out that there are likely to be due to uncertainties in the removal of the foreground from the CMB.^[9] (See Cosmic microwave background radiation#Low multipoles.)

  –Joke 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying WHO pointed this out--it was not God, it was some--actually a few--astronomers. Here are four very recent citations, just astro-ph numbers and four from last year: 0603369, 0601427, 0603308, 0603367, 0502237, 0508047, 0503442, 0511802.Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is my take. The papers 0511802 and 0601427 are about non-Gaussianity, not about the quadrupole and octopole, which is a different, though related, discussion. The problem with the other papers (0503442, 0603367, and 0502237, 0603308) is that rather than marginalizing over foregrounds, they use so-called foreground cleaned maps, such as the WMAP Internal Linear Combination map, the Tegmark foreground cleaned map, or the wavelet cleaned map of 0603308. Nobody disputes that the effect is in these maps. The question is whether the errors induced in the foreground subtracted map are properly accounted for. The four papers I consider authoritative are Slosar and Seljak (0404567), Bielewicz et al. (0507186), Copi et al. (0508047), and Tegmark and de Oliveira-Costa (0603369, which is spanking new!). They obtain similar results and come to very different conclusions. From Slosar and Seljak,

We also discuss recent claims that the quadrupole and octopole are aligned. If one believes the ILC map, then the evidence for the quadrupole and octopole alignment is considerable. All three methods tested here [...] indicate that the two are suspiciously aligned. However, as soon as foreground uncertainties are included the evidence for this alignment disappears. It is not unexpected that the probability distributions broaden, but what is surprising is how rapidly the evidence vanishes and how strongly perfect or even partial alignment is excluded by the data. This strongly suggests that much of the evidence of the alignment comes from the portion of the data most contaminated by the galactic foregrounds.

from Bielewicz,

the well-known quadrupole-octopole correlation is confirmed at the 99% significance level, and shown to be robust with respect to frequency and sky cut. Previous claims are thus supported by our analysis. Finally, the low-ℓ alignment with respect to the ecliptic claimed by Schwarz et al. (2004) is nominally confirmed in this analysis, but also shown to be very dependent on severe a-posteriori choices. Indeed, we show that given the peculiar quadrupole-octopole arrangement, finding such a strong alignment with the ecliptic is not unusual.

from Copi,

This figure clearly shows that sky cuts of a few degrees or larger introduce significant uncertainty in the extracted multipole vectors and their normals, leading to increased error in all alignment tests. Nevertheless, the cut-sky alignments are consistent with their full sky values even for relatively large cuts. [...] While the results of this exercise are in good agreement with those found by Slosar & Seljak (2004) and Bielewicz et al. (2005), unlike these authors, we emphasize that the cut sky is always expected to lead to shift in the alignment values and to increased errors.

from Tegmark,

Confirming the conclusion of [Bielewicz 0507186], the octopole is seen to be quite robost, whereas the quadrupole moves around somewhat more (it is clearly more fragile due to its intrinsically lower amplitude). As seen in Figure 6, this causes the apparent measured alignment be somewhat less significant than the true one, but make no dramatic difference. Similarly, we find that replacing Mask 0 by Mask 6 (the joint quadrupole/octopole fit in Table 1) degrades the alignment significance only slightly, from a one-in-sixty fluke to a one-in-forty fluke.

Obviously, although these papers come to mutually consistent conclusions, they interpret the same observations in very different ways. They all confirm that the quadrupole and octopole are aligned with a significance of 1–2% in the so-called "cleaned" maps, with a somewhat less significant alignment with the ecliptic, and that the signficance is reduced when a more detailed analysis with a careful treatment of foregrounds is performed. Their interpretation of this result differs. Slosar and Seljak indicate that it eliminates evidence for alignment; Bielewicz thinks that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is confirmed, but not the ecliptic alignment; Copi thinks that the alignment with the ecliptic is very robust, despite agreeing his results are consistent with Slosar and Bielewicz; Tegmark suggest that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is robust and does not consider the ecliptic. Maybe we'll learn more about it Thursday at noon, but I doubt it. –Joke 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we add these four papers to the footnote, and change "pointed out that they are likely due to uncertainties" to "pointed out that they may be due to uncertainties" (yes, all this for two words)? –Joke 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Change 6

Reinstate:

Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to 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, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded.^[10]

Justification: It is plain wrong to describe the signers of the Open Letter as supporters of alternative cosmology. Some of them are, but most are not. Two hundred and fifty of them--"many"--are scientists or engineers associated with instituions, all but a handful of them being universites, or government or corporate research insitutions. Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue.

Who agrees with this change? Who disagrees?Elerner 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Agree with EricTommysun 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about

However, many scientists, some from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded."

Jon 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Jon's version, but I think it may be possible to find an even better version. I don't like the words many and bias. Many, compared to what? And bias is intrinsically POV. –Joke 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the more quantitative: "However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded."Elerner 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. By the way, can you have a look at the void comments above. –Joke 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not fine. That sentence assumes that the "bias" exists when it isn't clear that it does. This is making a mountain out of a molehill and is striking as POV-pushing.

Why not simply quote the article and be done with it? That would be an honest way to deal with it. It reads: "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." Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun 06:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to conventional cosmology. --> this statement is obviously not NPOV. There is no independent corroboration that such a statement is correct. It could be that all the alternative cosmology developers are all incapable of producing good work. (I'm not saying that they are, only that it's not NPOV to claim that the hampering is due to exclusive allocation of funding.) --ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded. --> cosmologies aren't "funded", grants are given to scientists and research groups. This kind of wording is exceedingly problematic. --ScienceApologist 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote EL: "Of those, at least 40 are, to my own knowledge, astronomers or astrophysicists, including those from many leading institutions. Many of the other singers are physicists of various sorts, and well able to identify scientific bias when they see it. Joshua may want to wish this away, but it is there for anyone to see at cosmologystatement.org. To desribe these scientists as "these people" or to dismiss them as all adovactes of alterantive cosmologies is simply untrue." --> Eric, can you name one person who signed the statement who supports the Big Bang? --ScienceApologist 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about these areas of the subject to answer. --Iantresman 10:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma astrophysics as a model

Here is what scientists can do. Notive how their simulation looks just like a galaxy Tommysun 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1974, Alfvén's theoretical work on field-aligned electric currents in the aurora, based on earlier work by Kristian Birkeland, was confirmed by satellite, and Birkeland currents were discovered. Plasma Cosmology, a onetime alternative to the Big Bang now considered discredited by most in the astronomical community, is, in part, based on Alfvén's work. Alfvén subsequently highlighted the importance of treating astrophsyical plasmas as such, writing... [11]:

This comment (and is taken in account for in the cosmological standard model).is suspicious, as if added on as an afterthought.

Tommy Mandel 07:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if they found Zero point energy yet...

Tommy Mandel 07:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They did already, the serpent people from the planet Klattoo gave it to the US government in the 50s, they've been covering it up ever since. Jon 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the text was added by ScienceApologist [12], 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)

Footnotes

Well done Joke137 with the footnotes, I'm sure it was tedious to re-do, but very worthwhile. Having done a few articles with lots of footnotes, I'm going off to learn about the new footnote module. --Iantresman 08:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have tried to address everybody's concerns with my recent edits, particularly with the voids and low-l. I am pretty much happy with this version, so I hope other people find it agreeable. I also changed "Advocates claim that fractal dimension has been borne out by many studies..." to "Fractal scaling has been borne out by some studies...". I figure removing "advocates claim that" (which isn't true anyways, plenty of people have claimed that, not only plasma cosmology advocates) should compensate for changing the "many" to "some". –Joke 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Round of applause! Cheers Jon 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I hate to quibble (generally Joke's last edits are fine.) But it is RESEARCH, not researchers, that is not being funded. Quite a few scientists are getting funding for other work that does not involve alternate cosmology, but can't get funded for research that does. So this phrase is more accurate. Also , we are talking about a specifc statement and that is what it says --investigations, not investigators.Elerner 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What Hawking and Ellis actually proved

So I finally got Hawking and Ellis at the library and it is educational to see what their argument actually is. It is NOT a proof that GR predicts the expansion of the universe, so the statement in the article is clearly wrong as it stands.

In section 10.1, H&E refer to an earlier (in the book) proof of the existence of singularities in gravitational collapse and then apply this to the universe:

“Thus one might expect that the conditions of theorem 2 will be satisfied in the reverse direction of time on cosmological scale, providing that the universe is in some sense sufficiently symmetrical and contains a sufficient amount of matter to give rise to closed trapped surfaces.” So these two assumptions are necessary for the proof. Now H&E set out to prove that those conditions apply, not from the mathematics of GR, but from observations of the CBR, and assumptions about it:

No, these are not the assumptions Hawking and Ellis use. The assumptions come later. –Joke 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

“We shall give two arguments to shows that this indeed seems to be the case. Both arguments are based on the observations of the microwave background…”

They immediately state the assumption that the universe is transparent in microwave frequencies to 10^27 cm, so this is the first assumption of their proof. They justify this by saying that we can observe discrete sources at this distance. (This clearly does not follow, since we can observe sufficiently bright UV sources through dust that highly absorbs them and the same can be true at microwave wavelengths.)

They then describe their first argument, that since the universe is transparent and since the CBR is highly isotropic, the universe that produced the CBR is close to an FRW metric.

In the proof of this theorem, they explicitly use the assumption that the radiation is freely propagating. In addition, they introduce a second assumption that the matter—the galaxies—can be approximated by a smooth fluid of constant density. In other words they assume it does have a finite, constant average density—is homogenous.

Then they introduce a third assumption that the cosmological constant is zero. Now they put all these things together and get the unsurprising result that in an isotropic, homogenous(non-zero density) universe without cosmological constant, you can always find a large enough radius that the matter within that radius exceeds the Schwarzschild mass and so is a closed surface. Thus if it is a closed surface, it must collapse to a singularity (or expand form one.)

So, far from being a “generic prediction of GR”, this proof requires 3 additional explicit assumptions—a universe transparent at microwave frequencies, a finite average density, and a zero cosmological constant. Clearly none of these assumptions is necessarily true. Both my work on the FIR-radio correlation and Lieu’s work on SZ is evidence that the universe is not transparent at microwave frequencies, which would collapse the whole proof. Second, a fractal universe has no determinate density, since density depends on the scale on which it is measured. Any universe with fractal dimension of 1 or less will have NO radius within which there is a Schwarzschild mass and thus no closed surface. Finally of course even Big Bang cosmologists do not accept today the non-zero cosmological constant .

Although I don't agree with the first of your arguments, the second is dead on. I agree that this proof isn't relevant. If you look at the archive, you can see that I was specifically pointing you to the second proof. By the way, do you really argue that the plasma universe has a non-zero cosmological constant? Because if so, the expansion is just obvious: it looks like the de Sitter universe on large scales. By the way, I thought you favored fractal dimension two. Is it one or two? –Joke 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am specifcially talking about whether the sentence in the the plasma cosmology article accurately describes what H&E did, not about what is "true". No personally I don't think anything of the cosmological constant and plasam theory predicts a fractal dimaneison of 2 up to scales of several Gpc. Beyond that, there is not much evidence one way or the other.Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So much for proof number 1. Moving on to their second proof, H&E attempt to prove that there is enough matter for a closed surface by the blackbody spectrum of the CBR. Again they assume a zero cosmological constant. More important, they assume that the scattering mechanism is Thompson scattering. But this is true only in unmagnetized plasma. If for example, there are magnetized filaments with high magnetic fields, they can scatter radiation by inverse synchrotron absorption and subsequent synchrotron emission, making the scattering length orders of magnitude greater, or equivalently making the amount of matter needed to thermalize many orders of magnitude smaller. It is easy to prove, as I have done in my papers on the plasma theory of the CBR, that thermalization can be achieved within a radius, and with a mass of matter, that is far less than a Schwarzschild mass within that radius. So the second proof as well does not rest only on GR, but also on the assumption that the CBR is scattered only by Thompson scattering and, again that there is no cosmological constant.

It is true that the mechanism they are assuming is Thompson scattering because they argue that ionized hydrogen has the highest cross section per unit mass. Can you explain to me what is different about your model that increases the cross section? (If I understand you right, inverse synchrotron absorption and subsequent synchrotron emission is γγ → e⁺e^- → γγ where one of the γ is sourced by the background field? Can you also provide references that this process can be more efficient than Thompson scattering? –Joke 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I think I should be looking at your IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. paper from 1990, correct? –Joke 18:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938. For dense, highly magnetized filaments the cross section for synchrotron absoprtion can be vastly higher than Thompson scattering.Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The final argument H&E use is based on the earlier proofs, so of course includes their assumptions as well. Here H&E explicitly assume an FRW, expanding universe metric and then argue that if that expansion is traced back far enough in time, you reach a point where the microwave background energy density along would form Schwarzschild masses. But this assumes expansion, it does not seek to prove it.

Yes. –Joke 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So to summarize, the Hawking and Ellis proofs do NOT show that the expansion is a generic consequence of GR, but instead is a consequence of GR plus the additional assumptions that the present-day universe is essentially transparent to CBR radiation, that such radiation is scattered only by Thompson scattering, that the distribution of mass is homogenous (definite average density, non-fractal) and that there is no cosmological constant. End of lecture.

Can all agree to delete the offending sentence now? Elerner 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not yet. The assumption is not exactly that there was no scattering over 3×10²⁷ cm, but rather that there was significant scattering beyond that distance. The argument is that since we can resolve many individual sources out to that distance the near perfect isotropy of the CMB must have been established at a greater distance (unless, of course, there is something in the intergalactic medium that isotropizes the CMB). Even if you bring this distance in, it simply increases the bound on the scattering. –Joke 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, Joke. "from the fact that it remains isotropic travelling over such a long distance, we can conclude that on a large scale the metric of the universe is close to one of the the Robertson-Walker metrics" and in the next paragraph "since the radiation is freely propoagating..". Short-scale scattering explains the isotropy but is assumed not to occur. Also, what about all those other assumptions, too?Elerner 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, please read all the comments interspersed throughout the text. I was referring to the second argument: you are quoting from the first. –Joke 21:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The second argument assumes zero cosmological constant and only Thompson scattering. Still not a direct consequence, generic or otherwise of GR.Elerner 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried a compromise wording. In general, I think that the ideas of Hawking and Ellis suggested to most people who study general relativity that singularities are a generic feature of general relativity, and that only certain highly symmetric solutions (such as Minkowski space) don't have them. Ask Chris Hillman if you disagree, I think he is an expert in these sorts of things. If you read the whole book, that's sort of the point. I agree that that is not formulated as a theorem, and that no comprehensive theorem exists, because they all have some assuptions. So in that sense, the statement in the article reflected the "conventional wisdom" and not any precise statement. I have tried to change it to reflect that.

I have also added a note that you disagree. That veers towards original research, since the only reference is this Talk page, but what the hell. I don't really think it is possible to say more in the article, since there is no literature on the issue. I will say on the talk page, that the theorem of Hawking and Ellis generalizes straightforwardly. Even though the density of a universe of fractal dimension two goes to zero as you average over large enough scales, every past-directed null geodesic in a stationary universe (i.e. although it may be dynamical, its aggregate properties are not changing) of fractal dimension two still intersects an infinite amount of matter, which is enough for the Hawking proof to work. –Joke 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The only reasons the sentence was in the article is because it argued that GR implied expansion, and therefore, by implication, the surface brightness data would contradict GR. But I have shown that this is not at all the case. The idea that you can derive expansion from several other assumptions is just irrelevant to what we are discussing here, which is the obervational evidence , from surface brightness, against expansion.

The question of whether or not the Hubble relation is caused by expnasion is an observational one, not a theoretical one. If it is caused by expansion, the (z+1)^3 sclaing has to work. If it does not work, then the Hubble redshifts are not caused by expansion.

So I'm deleting the whole mess as irrelevent to the article. You should put it in the article on Big Bang.Elerner 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your response does not address the issues. The surface brightness data is not the "only reason" the sentences are in the article. Two points are made in the section:

1. GR unambiguously implies expansion (or contraction) in a universe containing matter of the ordinary sort, whereas you suggest that there is no expansion.

No, it does not. The reference you cited, H&E clearly does not prove this, without additional assumptions, as I have pointed out at length.Elerner 16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at Raychaudhuri equation. The negativity of the right hand side (if you choose a zero-vorticity congruence) says that locally static solutions to general relativity in the presence of matter are impossible (subject to a reasonable energy condition): congruences of comoving geodesics are focussed, which corresponds to a contraction of space. The way contractions and expansions of space can be defined in inhomogeneous universes is through congruences of comoving geodesics. For an example of this sort of use, see e.g. astro-ph/0503583 which proves that local acceleration can't be obtained by backreaction. –Joke 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In a fractal universe the average density of matter is zero, which makes the time scale of expansion or contraction infinite--for a fractal dimension of 1 or less. By the way, you are adding your own additional assumptions, like zero vorticity. Anyway, a zero rate of expansion or contraction is the same as a static universe. Also, even for a fractal universe of dimension 2, with nR=10^19 particles/cm^2, the expansion or contraction time would be of the order of 2x10^14 years and would be unobservably long. So again, you are wrong that GR alone implies anything, You need additional assumptions like homogeniety and no rotation.

You seem to find it hard to let go of the idea that you can "prove" mathematically that the universe is expanding. You can't. Give it up. While you're at it, why don't you admit who you are? Afraid to be caught arguing with a heretic?Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in telling you who I am. Period. I'm pretty sure you've never heard of me, if that's what you're interested in.

I am not trying to "prove" mathematically that the universe is expanding. You seem to be besotted with the idea that I am! I am only suggesting that it is a clear prediction of GR, something that has pretty much been known since the failure of the Einstein static universe in the early part of the century. I am not adding any additional assumptions. The zero vorticity condition is a choice when specifying your congruence of geodesics, just like you can choose a coordinate system! Some authors, when specifying congruences, like to use the trajectories of dark matter, because they are zero vorticity and are (assumed) to travel along the comoving geodesics, but any congruence can be used.

Your argument for the expansion or contraction time is three orders of magnitude off. nR=10^{19 GeV/cm2 gives a mass density of 10-26 kg/m3 for the Local Group. If the local group is indeed about 5×1012 solar masses and has a radius of 100 kpc, then you are four orders of magnitude off, at 10-22 kg/m3. Even assuming you probably don't believe in virial mass estimates, that should leave you three orders of magnitude off (you encounter the same problem if you use any typical cluster or group). If you use the more realistic nR=1023 GeV/cm2 (strangely 1 kg per square meter) you get something that is strangely near the value in conventional cosmology, 20 Gyr.} Besides, you just conceded my point, even if you don't agree on the numbers. –Joke 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue numbers, you have to check your orders of magnitude more carefully. The Local Group's radius is about 1.7 Mpc, not 100 kpc. See, for example, http://www.seds.org/messier/more/local.html.This makes your calculation off by a factor of 17 ^3 or more than three orders of magnitudeElerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was stupid. I picked the wrong number out of Binney and Tremaine, and using the correct number gives roughly the right answer. Still if I look at a typical cluster of 10¹⁵h^-1 solar masses and radius 3 h^-1 Mpc, I do get a density down by three orders of magnitude (7.5×10²⁸ instead of 2.5×10²⁴). Since they have the same mass-to-light ratio according to virial mass estimates, wouldn't you want to get them both right? –Joke 16:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1. You suggest an eternal universe in which the CMB is generated by repeated scattering. Hawking and Ellis show that this is impossible, although not in the exact situation you describe.

H&E don't prove this at all. As I've said above, their argument is based on only one kind of scattering.Elerner

Read it carefully. This is what Hawking and Ellis say:

The argument we shall now give [...] does to a certain extent depend on the shape of the [microwave background] spectrum. We shall assume that the approximately black body nature of the spectrum and the high degree of small scale isotropy of the radiation indicate that it has been at least partially thermalized by repeated scattering. In other words, there must be enough matter on each past-directed null geodesic from us to cause the opacity to be high in that direction. We shall now show that this matter will be sufficient to make our past light cone reconverge.

They never say "assuming Thompson scattering..." That comes in later, when they say

at centimeter wavelengths the largest ratio of opacity to density for matter at reasonable densities is that given by Thompson scattering off free electrons in ionized hydrogen.

so it is clear that they are using the example of Thompson scattering to establish a sort of lower bound because they argue that it is the most efficient scatterer, and any other material would cause the past light-cone to reconverge more quickly. Now, obviously, you disagree and you think that force-free filaments with multi GeV electrons (which are, I might add, roughly ten thousand times as massive as the electrons in the plasma Hawking and Ellis are talking about) has a higher opacity to density ratio. I said that in my edits. Now leave it be. Even adding that much, in my opinion, consitutes original research on your part. –Joke 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research--it's in my published papers. And it is not "my opinion". Read the paper--check the plasma physics. You don't seem to be able to follow very elementary plasma physics, yet the math involved in synchrotron absorption (a physically different proces than Thompson scattering) is a lot simpler than GR. It is also based on a theory that is far better confirmed than GR--electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations. If you can't find flaws in my derivations, then you should not keep reverting the article.Elerner 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again I urge you to avoid personal comments, but I couldn't follow your paper because it doesn't derive the synchrotron absorption cross section which is the focus of this discussion. Fortunately, I found a very nice paper (G. Ghisellini and R. Svensson, The synchrotron and cyclo-synchrotron absorption cross section, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 252, 313–18 (1991) [13]) which does it quite cleanly. In the circumstance you quote in your paper (using the figures quoted on the second page) the ratio of the synchrotron cross section to the Thomson cross section is about 5000, which is, if you account for the relativistic masses and additional magnetic field energy, has an opacity to density advantage over Thomson scattering of about 200. So if all the mass of the universe were in these filaments, then the Hawking and Ellis argument would not apply if the optical depth to infinity were less than 40 (= 200 × 0.2). Unfortunately, in the very same paper, you argue that the contribution of the filaments is in fact a very small fraction of the mass density of our universe (0.7% of the current thermonuclear output!). So I don't think the paper can be taken as a clear refutation of the Hawking and Ellis argument. Leave the thing in, let the reader decide, like we've done in every other case. –Joke 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you must check your arithmetic more carefully. Eq. 2.18a of the reference you cited shows that the ratio of synchrotron to Thompson cross section for radiation near the cyclotron frequency is 8.2x10^15/B, where B is the magnetic field in gauss. Even for the densest filaments cited in my paper, with B=2.5x10^5 gauss the ratio is 3.3x10^10, which is a long way off from your figure of 200. Anyway, I will think about a way to revise this so as to end the dispute. I suspect the whole thing should be moved to a separate section.Elerner 05:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was assuming the energy was partitioned equally between electrons and protons. Now that I look back at your paper, it seems that electrons and protons have equal Lorentz factors, not energies. –Joke 16:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

These are important. I agree that observations are paramount – I've never said they weren't – but if your theory is incompatible with GR which has had powerful experimental verification, then it suggests that it incorrect, or at least incomplete. –Joke 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that GR is about gravity. It is also well know that the Universe includes EM. If GR does not include EM, then GR is incomoplete. Isn't this obvious? Tommy Mandel 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted some compromise language. I am not going to go into yet another book, after all of Joke's admitted errors. Hopefully we can end the matter here.Elerner 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've seen Binney and Tremaine before, but the argument isn't really important to anything in the article. I have adjusted the wording. As long as you can accept my adjustment of the wording, the main change being that GR does cause local contraction in the presence of matter, I am content. –Joke 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, GR does not say that the space in the solar system or the galaxy is contracting--i.e. that the metric is changing. GR in no way rules out local stable concentrations of matter, no more than Newtonian gravity does.Your wording clearly implies a change in the metric with time, and that is in no way a result of GR.Elerner 06:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. All the crap below bums me out. But of course GR says that the space in the solar system or the galaxy is contracting: both objects are emitting gravitational radiation. The relaxation times are rather long, but that doesn't obviate the fact that it's happening. A more appropriate example would be a rock in empty space. I don't know what to say about that, because I've never seen the solution for a rock. Anyways the current state of the article is acceptable to me. –Joke 04:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quantized redshift falsifies Doppler redshift

I am sorry that I have been forced to assume the position of intellectual combatant here at this time. I apologize to Eric and Art, as for the rest, disregard me all you want, but be warned, the truth will out eventually and you will pay dearly for your intellectual stance. The world is going to laugh at you, at least those who bother thinking about you.

I wonder what happened to the "FREE" part of Wikipedia. Who says nothing can be edited without SA's approval? I have been looking around various cosmological subjects, Seems that ScienceApologist is involved with all of them. Looking at the discussions,ScienceApologist frequently deletes the work of others. There are complaints on every page. I found the entry Intrinsic Redshift which included Arp's work, and of course discounts it, but says nothing about quantized redshift. Indeed, there is no entry for quantized redshift. What does quantized redshift have to do with Plasma cosmology? POV or not, Plasma cosmology is to a degree an alternative theory to the widely accepted big bang theory. The big bang theory is supported in part by Doppler redshift observatons. Redshift is directly observed but the Doppler interpretation is an assumption that even Hubble didn't believe in. Quantized redshift was found by W. Tifft some time ago, and it has since been verified several times. Quantized and Doppler do not go together in a description of redshift, the usual explanation is that Doppler redshift would reveal a smooth continuous movement while quantized redshift shows periodic movement. Unless, of course, the earth is at the center of the universe surrounded by galaxies spaced like an onion skin. The explanation for quantization is simply that the shift is intrinsic, hence intrinsic redshift. for example the CREIL effect. I added these references to the intrinsic redshift page but they were soon deleted by SA. And with no discussion that Joshua always demands of others. He has used the word "evil" I wonder if I can use that word too. There is much more at stake here than Wikipedia hobby time, the reputation and security of American science is on the line, especially in regard to cosmology. The reason is simple, if American science is wrong, how far will it take us? There are many who believe that money has become the reason and purpose of science. Funding is important to those who are trying to suport themselves and their families. But is science science when it is being used for money?

M.B. Bell1 and D. McDiarmid1.(2005) Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model

M.B. Bell (2006) Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that they are Likely to be a Lot Closer than their Redshifts Imply. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242

Tifft W.G.. (2003) 1Redshift periodicities, The Galaxy-Quasar Connection. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 285, Number 2, 2003, pp. 429-449(21)

Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3 Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Numbers 1-2, 1996, pp. 143-157(15)

Oldershaw, Robert L. (1995) New Light on Redshift Periodicities; Quantization in the Properties of Quasars and Planets. APEIRON Vol. 2, Nr. 2,

It didn't take long before ScienceApologist deleted them. Isn't this vandalism? What right has he got to delete my entries? SA by his own admission is a big bang advocate, and the method he uses is to delete or confuse opposing viewpoints. I don't know where he comes from, but in America freedom of speech is a right granted in our constitution. We are free to state opposing views. For one party to delete opposing viewpoints is not legal. When Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view, it mean that both sides need to be presented. That is common sense in all endeavors. Nowhere but here is a neutral point of view obtained by eliminating the opposing view.

Amazing what a difference there is between the original papers/books, and the opinions of the followers. For example, the Black hole is actually a conjecture based on the fact that they do not have any other explanation for how matter/energy is moving OUT. If one finds and reads the original papers, this is made plain by the author. But somehow, as the message is carried from reader to reader, the assumption becomes hypothesis becomes fact becomes basis for new hypothesis becomes fact. In the end we read in the morning newspaper that they find black holes by observing tremendous outflows. And when they find tremendous outflows, they thus have found a black hole. Tommy Mandel 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how I got on your good side? I'm the first to get in your face for saying things you can't really believe, not ScienceApologist.

I respect you because you have demonstrated to me that you are honest. I have not seen this demonstrated by the others. Of course I do not agree with some of your technical opinions. But at least you admit that you are not one to determine the technical issues. For example, you state, at least by implication, that plasma is composed of freely flowing electrons. Anyone who had even a small knowledge of plasma would see this and automatically discount everything that came after it. Tommy Mandel 19:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree I have avoided determining technical issues, including describing plasma as freely flowing electrons. Instead I said you could be right, and ELerner then corrected the oversight. Art LaPella 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're learning to avoid the worst of my criticism, but even here I think you really know the difference between the First Amendment and Wikipedia policy, for instance - you're free to talk in your house, but you aren't free to use someone else's megaphone without answering to their rules. Things like that make ScienceApologist look more credible when he claims that Eric Lerner and Ian Tresman are like you but better at hiding it. Art LaPella 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but I must have missed this. Where did ScienceApologist claim this? --Iantresman 10:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard to list times he suggested you aren't thoroughly honest, like this time and this time. Art LaPella 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I couldn't figure out what was making him seem more credible. --Iantresman 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was, in analogy form, if someone claims a Bigfoor is chasing him, he becomes more credible if you then see a Bigfoot yourself. Tommy Mandel might not want to be promoting ScienceApologist like that. Art LaPella 04:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly his statemeent establishes him as a big bang advocate."The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. As far as "there can be only one theory available that describes the observations." I wonder if SA ever heard of the word "balance." And for that matter Wikipedia itself. I wonder if all of you have ever read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions" where paradigm was introduced. And Paradigm shift...Tommy Mandel 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the book, pg 79: "...there is no such thing as tresearch without counterinstances. For what is it that differentiates normal science from science is a crisis state? Not, surely, that the former confronts no counterinstances."Tommy Mandel 17:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(I ought to have learned not to respond by now, but obviously, I haven't.) Can I just point out, Tommy, that (1) EVERYBODY knows that SA and I advocate for the big bang, or rather, for retaining clear information of the deficiencies of alternate theories on Wikipedia and (2) even so, you're completely misinterpreting the quote from SA. He was arguing that if you want a theory of the "early universe" the big bang is it, because the alternative cosmologies suggest the universe is infinitely old. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. –Joke 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try this from Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact.

Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted BB as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who seriously question the BB are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.

As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an unproven theory.

Fortunately there long has been an unindoctrinated minority of scientists, both amateur and professional, who continue to discover and present observational evidence and logic that provides reason to doubt the accepted paradigm. Some of better known and most effective of the scientists in this struggle are Halton Arp of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany, Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Jayant Narlikar of the Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in India. Other well known astronomers/cosmologists who have long fought for the proper consideration of alternate cosmologies include Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold and Eric Lerner.

Another thing everybody knows is that alternate cosmology advocates sometimes publish their opinion, which in this case pretty much condenses to "hooray for our side". Art LaPella 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Art, gotcha. Did you know this article is about Plasma Cosmology? If you want to write about the big bang why don't you go there? They certainly would love to have you there.It is not ethical for a big bang supporter to edit the position of the alternative theory. Tommy Mandel 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know I've often criticized you, but not plasma cosmology? The article's substantive arguments come after the introduction you quoted. And even if I did criticize plasma cosmology, did you know how many unanswered defenses we have written on the ethics of big bang supporters editing here? Art LaPella 21:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is ethical about a big bang supporter editing the opposing view? I cannot think of even one defense. can I go and edit the big bang article? You guys are getting greedy and that will be your downfall. Back off and stay in your own territory, then thing will be ok, but try to extend your reach to everything and it will backfire. Tommy Mandel 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say you disagree with this stuff, you said you still cannot think of it, as if you had Alzheimer's disease. Of course you can edit the big bang article, if you don't get banned for ignoring criticism. By the way, your recent article edits make more sense than a lot of this talk page stuff. Art LaPella 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say if the Universe is infinitely old or not? The question is whether a galaxy or star has a beginning. Big difference. Doesn't it bother you that the big bang begins with an infinite energy that emerges out of nothing? And if so, doesn't that at least suggest to you that perhaps there is more to nothing than we can imagine? And if that is so, what is there to prevent this energy from nothing to happen again. Of the 21 versions of Inflation, one of them has the singularity occuring in many places at once, which is suspiciously what the placement of galaxies look like. Tommy Mandel 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuhn points out that a paradigm shift cannot occur unless there is an alternative to take its place. What SA is doing is preventing such alternative to be formulated. That is not science. Tommy Mandel 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And Max Planck said that "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" [14] --Iantresman 18:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmrh, that's disappointing. I had heard that Planck said "Science advances one funeral at a time." I think that is rather punchier. –Joke 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that strike you as sad? I think that is the point Kuhn was trying to make, doesn't matter what is true or not, what matters is who is in charge. Tommy Mandel 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's still a bit of a stretch to say that periodicity in redshift data falsifies the Doppler interpretation of the Hubble relation,

I heard one interpretaton saying that because the location of stars is random, so should be the doppler redshift and thus we would see a smoothness but we don't. The implication, therefore, is that the redshift is not doppler related, or at least Doppler redshift is only part of what we observe, If so, then how much? 50%? 10%? 1%?Tommy Mandel 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

but there is undoubtedly something interesting going on. These slides from a presentation of Meyer's seems quite interesting, starting with a so-far-unexplained 12 hour periodic abberation in time data from GPS satellites, and the Pioneer acceleration. He contends they point to a SR modification involving, interestingly enough, redshift. It's just a hypothesis, but a very interesting one. Jon 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma is not a gas

Can I just clarify that plasma is not an electrically conducting gas. Gases characteristically do not conduct electricity. Plasmas have characteristics which totally differentiate themselves from gases. That's not to say that a plasma can not be treated, sometimes, as an ideal gas. But then gases and liquids can sometimes be treated as fluids, but we still differentiate gases from liquids. --Iantresman 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost all properties of plasmas can be explained by treating the plasma as a conducting gas. We don't say that mercury or salt water are not liquids but a new state of matter just because they are conducting. Tell me just what you have mind and I probably won't care, but keep it short. --Art Carlson 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that plasma can sometimes be treated as a gas, in the same way that gases and liquids can sometime be treated as a generic "fluid". But it is those very differences between an ideal gas-like plasma, and a plasma, that plasma cosmologists consider so important. As Alfvén wrote [15]:

"The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although in reality synonymous, convey different general notions. The first term gives an impression of a medium that is basically similar to a gas, especially the atmospheric gas we are most familiar with. In contrast to this, a plasma, particularly a fully ionized magnetized plasma, is a medium with basically different properties: Typically it is strongly inhomogeneous and consists of a network of filaments produced by line currents and surfaces of discontinuity. These are sometimes due to current sheaths and, sometimes, to electrostatic double layers."

Alfvén refered to the idealised gas-like plasma, a "pseudo-plasma", in comparison with a "real plasma", and their properties are summarised in the table at the bottom of the page on Astrophysical plasma. --Iantresman 14:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like Lerner's definition of plasma, which I reverted. Most sources I've seen define plasma as an electrically conducting gas or at least defines it in terms of gas (say, as an ionized gas). I don't see a problem with this, but if you want to remove the reference to gas, it is important to mention its gaslike properties. Alfvén is here making a distinction between ionized gas and plasma which we don't clearly make in the article. –Joke 16:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had another go at the definition of plasma, providing a slightly broader definition from Peratt's book, but noting the more common perception of plasma being a gaseous. I think the defining properties is that the collection of particles behaves collectively under electromagnetic forces. This jist of it is also described on Peratt's Web site [16] --Iantresman 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gas-like is much more accurate than plain ole gas, and conveys to the reader that there is a difference. Doesn't "electrically conductive" mean "conducting electricity? Tommy Mandel 05:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have improved the language of the first paragraph. Tommy Mandel 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved sentence about no beginning from definition paragraph to paragraph about differences Tommy Mandel 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Improved sentence structure of first sentence in third paragraph Tommy Mandel 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the notable feature of plasma spiraling to third paragraph. Has this been discussed in the article later on? I'm sure it has, right? Tommy Mandel 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the sentence referring to the big bang and gravity in the third paragraph. Oddly enough, my delete key doesn't work and I tried to to do a control C to copy the sentence and place it in a mor3e appropriate place but that doesn't work either, So it will have to be rewritten and placed in the right place. I hope that everyone is satisfied with the first three paragraphs as they are now. I like them, however, I will be questioning the phrase "electrically conductive" later on. Not that plasma is not electrically conductive, but the word "electrically" means to me anyhow electricity, which as we all know plasma is not, being composed of both ions and electrons. I know what is meant by electrically conductive, but in the strict sense electrically conductive plasma is at least misleading. In the sense that plasma is not a conductor per se. Plasma is the conducting itself, and the point of plasma is that it doesn't require a "conductor." in order to flow. The problem may be that we don't have a word for "pasma conducts plasma" hat says what "wire conducts electricity" My keyboard is dying. Tommy Mandel 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tommy's edits here

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)

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)

I found no evidence that plasma is a plural, and anyway "Plasma are" sounds weird. Art LaPella 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Definition of plasma

Can we not link to the Plasma (physics) page for the actual definition? We don't need to repeat it here in detail, surely? Jon 08:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We could, though I think the definition is quite important, and it also is described in slightly more general terms than usual, which is also quite important. I don't think that most people really know what a plasma is beyond "some kind of gaseous stuff". --Iantresman 10:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was "spiraling" taken out? Tommy Mandel 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Because while charged particle may spiral in a magnetic field, they may also move in a circle, and, in an electric field, they move linearly. And plasmas may appear to move in other ways, for examples, ions beams appear to move linearly (even though the individual particles may be moving helically), Ferrraro corotation may give rise to rotating plasmas, the Solar wind moves in a Parker spiral. So while at the particle level everything might be moving in spirals, at the macro level, they may not appear to be doing so. --Iantresman 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this sentence today -- "Plasma cosmology often interprets astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. " very intriguing. I know I didn't write it because I have been struggling with trying to say it right. Whatever, it is a good example of how simple language can be very profound. Although I would argue the "often" part...I would like to add here that scaling means Plasma is intrinsically testableTommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "collection" with the more state of the art "integrative-system." It bears discussion. A "collection" is much like a pile of sand, and does not do anything more then be collected together. A system differs in that the elements are interconnected and interrelated and in this "together" way can give rise to new emergent properties. These new properties usually cannot be found in the parts by themselves. Or even the collection of the parts. So just like there are properties of the atom which are quite different from the properties of the constituent protons and electrons, there are properties of plasma that are quite different from these protons and electrons. Tommy Mandel 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits.

1. "integrative system" sounds more like dot-com boom mumbo-jumbo than elegant phrasing

You are fifty years behind the times, Joke, or you were joking. Have you read Charles Francois International Enclyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics" Joke? Certainly you have heard of systems science, Joke, after all their society, the International Society for Systems Sciences are celebrating their fiftieth confernce next July. Fifty years agfo they defined the system as integrative and wholistic as a process with feedbacks self-organizing as holonic wholes. I have an electronic seminar which I created at projects of ISSS.org at http://projects.isss.org/Main/Primer

The word "joking" is ridiculous: my own reaction was similar to Joke's. If we can't be honest about the basics, I think I'll skip the seminar. Art LaPella 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A "system: was defined by Bertalanffy General Systems Theory was writtin by him. as "elements in standing relationship" System principles apply to all systems. One of those principles is the integrating system, where the elements integrate as one whole. This is very basic stuff Art. This is how parts can work together and achieve wholeness.

I guess that establishes that mumbo-jumbo is at least 50 years old and not a product of the dot-com boom. Ya gotta admit it when you're beat, Joke. --Art Carlson 09:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people have been talking in gobbledygook since long before I was born. Strunk and White are dizzy in their graves. –Joke 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you do not have any idea what complex systems, complexity, emergence, interaction, holonic, process, self organization, adaptive complex systems, bifurcation, non-dissapative systems, Wholistic, criticality, are? If that is so, then it is clear that you are materialists, believing, as Josh said, that matter is all that exists. Systems is different, stating that it is to space primacy is given. Suddenly there is a source for matter to emerge from this primacy. And it is doing it right now, and not once upon a time. The atom is not a collection of gases, the atom is a process which involes the integrative relationships of two gases, such that new properties such as structure to start with, "emerge" thus forming what will be a holon, a whole that can become a part. A strictly materialist would say that the writing you are reading is composed of the parts black and white, and because their search for meaning, in the black and the white turns up nothing but mumbo jumbo, if you believe them, there is no meaning in the parts, and therefore meaning is mumbo jumbo. It is the emergent relationship of the gases, the emergent relationships of these marks on paper that act as processes and from that emerges meaning. Plasma is not a collection, it is a whole system. However, plasma can be studied in terms of the particles alone as well.

Tommy Mandel 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Case in point. --Art Carlson 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There may be projects that can benefit from system theory, although it sounds more like it's intended to justify the payrolls of tax-supported researchers. What I'm sure of, is that when such an abstraction is supported by statements that even Tommy doesn't believe half the time, the net result may properly be summarized as mumbo jumbo. If you think an attitude that can bluff your way through college will work in the outside world, then in your terms, you're badly in need of a "paradigm shift". Art LaPella 21:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves..."Tommy Mandel 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1. "In certain situations, even a solid can be seen as a plasma (ionized matter)" is ambiguous, and is almost certainly wrong to the extent that it means anything at all. Do you mean to suggest that a star is a solid?"

I didn't suggest it, Thomas did, the centermost few meters are described in terms of a solid plasma. Do you want me to explain it to you?

"Yes, please. After all, in common usage a solid with free electrons is a conductor, not a plasma".

Thomas has this theory about what is going on at the center of the Sun. Apparently, the protons are shoved together and as such they form a solid. His definiton of plasma is ionized matter, and if that is accepted, the solid core would be ionized solids or solid plasma. Thanks for clarifying "conductor" which, if your explanation is accepted, would mean that plasma is not, strictly speaking, a conductor. Plasma is a conductee.

"What makes plasma interesting is the interplay of the Navier-Stokes equation and Maxwell's Equations. Gases are more boring because Maxwell doesn't apply, while solids are more boring because Navier-Stokes doesn't apply." zowie 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't familair with the Navier-Stokes equations so I looked it up and found this:

Wiki says " The Navier-Stokes equations are differential equations which describe the motion of a fluid. These equations, unlike algebraic equations, do not seek to establish a relation among the variables of interest (e.g. velocity and pressure), rather they establish relations among the rates of change or fluxes of these quantities."

This is a good example of what I was talking about above -- whereas the algebraic equations describe a static relationship, differential equations describe a processing relationship. I think.Bohm's "Rheomodes" language is another example. In simple terms, verbs instead of nouns. Also interessting is the hierarchal ladder the mathematics form. And especially the "interplay" of these forms necessary to study plasma. Tommy Mandel 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...seems like one can tell, maybe, what subject one is looking at by the kind of mathematics that is being used? I wonder if General Relativity is also catagorized by these informal rules you produced? What class of mathematics is GR descrobed by? Are they limited to Newtonian (the object) and do they include NS calculus (the interplay)" If they included Maxwell (the wave) I'm sure these guys would have said so long ago...Or if GR does include Maxwell, how? Is that what Einstein was up to with his field equations? I recall reading Einstein saying, "I can formulate everything as field, but I can't get rid of matter." Well, what part of matter is NOT field?Tommy Mandel 06:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1. "Plasma fills the stars and to a degree occupies the space between them." Plasma is the stars and the ISM and the IGM. There is a very small amount of dust in certain regions, but this phrasing is utterly unclear.

–Joke 04:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was tryin to be poetic. Better yet, how about ".]]" Plasma is the stars and the ISM and the IGM."

Plasma makes up the space between stars? Space is made of plasma?

OVERVIEW EDITS

In assumption one, the term "equal" is a quantity, but it is not verfied in the ref: The ref. states clearly that in some cases magnetic fields are dominant (when matter is ionized) and when atoms are neutral, gravity dominates. Also, to say "on all scales" results in an error, as gravity is not equal to emf on atomic scales, if I remember right there is a difference of something like 10^43

Assumption two. text copied from above

Sorry, I still don't understand why the second assumption is in and of itself an important underpinning of plasma cosmology. Surely plasma cosmology merely provides an explanation (for those who find it satisfactory) that doesn't require the Big Bang? Thing is, I don't see why you couldn't have a version of plasma cosmology that did give a finite age for the universe. --Bth 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern views cosmology as "eternal" like Schroedinger with his view of NOW, "having no beginning and no end," How? Someone, lost the reference, said that GR requires a singularity, but, the person wrote, GR does not stipulate how large the singularity has to be nor does it limit the number of singularities, In fact one of the 21 versions of Inflation theory has mini-singularities all over the place. Does this mean that GR would be satisfied if a singularity occured during the development of each galaxy? Maybe? So, where does the matter come from? Plasma. Seems that some physicists believe that there is a hidden dimension of space, a fifth dimension, what rienmann and Maxwell called the fourth dimension. I call it the INSIDE of empty space. How does maxwell do that? I wish I knew, but so far I have been led to the displacement currents. What are they? Maxwell's equations are not the original equations he formulated, instead they are simplifications created by Heaviside. What he simplified out was the quaternions, which, I think, explained how EMF persists in space. So, plasma is connected to a dimension inside space, which always existed, and which is the source of the energy within a galaxy/star.Therefore matter is streaming OUTWARD from any galaxy, exactly as observed. No need for fantastic creations from nothing ending in nothing. Tommysun 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind me fixing your formatting, it was getting rather hard to read jumping all over the page.) Tom Van Flandern (and you) are perfectly entitled to view cosmology as eternal. I just don't see that it's a necessary precondition for plasma cosmology. Putting it up front like that is putting the cart before the horse, and makes plasma cosmology look like a mish-mash of anti-Big-Bang positions, rather than a theory in its own right. I'm trying to write for the enemy here, dammit! The sensible way to present it would be "plasma cosmology posits X, Y and Z and thus does not require the universe to have a finite age to accord with the observations". (If indeed it does accord with the observations.) Oh, and GR in and of itself doesn't require a singularity; it's perfectly possible to construct toy GR models with all manner of properties. --Bth 10:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the second assumption is not as important as the first, but I guess it's included to differentiate itself from Big Bang cosmology. You could have a version of plasma cosmology which has a finite age, if you are prepared to accept certain phenomenon in plasma cosmology, and certain phenomenon from Big Bang cosmology. No-one has ownership of plasma cosmology, nor Big Bang cosmology--Iantresman 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it doesn't help to list it as a basic assumption, at least not so strongly stated -- to my way of thinking, it sets plasma cosmology up solely as "not the Big Bang", rather than a theory in its own right. Maybe a statement like "It is possible for the universe to be infinite in age and variable in time" would be a less strident version of the last two assumptions that still gets across the differences. --Bth 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And yes, it should be kpc. My mistake. --Iantresman 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only raised it 'cos I couldn't just fix it with the page in protection. --Bth 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what they are trying to say is "effect means cause, and without cause there is no effect". The big bang theory is an effect without a cause. Plasma studies work because the effect can be traced to the cause. Is this actually an assumption or a law? Does the beginning of matter mean the beginning of the Universe? Is the beginning of the Universe the beginning of matter? Can ordinary physics, not new physics, create matter? Tommy Mandel 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because "effect" infers "cause", effect as a beginning of the Universe cannot be assumed without cause. Without cause, there can be no beginning. If beginning has a cause, then it is not the beginning. (I wonder how much of this problem is caused by having to use words to describe it?) Tommy Mandel 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology assumes that effect infers cause, and does not assume that effect occurs without cause.

Tommy Mandel 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a distinction has to be made here between Universe and matter. We can't say that matter is the Universe, because at one time, according to the prevailing theory, Universe existed but matter did not. So Universe becomes a huge abstraction (Whole) that we can never touch, so to speak. Matter, however, begs the question of where does it come from? If Plasma cosmology denies a beginning time, it will still have to account for the creation of matter. And it will have to do it now.

Can Plasma create matter? I don't know. I do know that there are a lot of basement inventors trying to get energy from the Aether. And it does seem like they are not entirely unsuccessful. What they do seem to be able to do is create a tiny quantity of above unity energies. But if that is so, then a star would also create a relatively tiny quantity of above unity energy too. But effect means cause, so where is this energy coming from? It cannot be coming from conventional sources, science would have found it long ago.

Hal Puthoff in 1987 showed how the ground state of the hydrogen atom derives energy from the ZPE. Recall that the atom is moving and the effect of moving requires something that is moving it. The ZPE is the Aether with a different name. So all those atoms in a star are deriving balancing energies from the ZPE. who is to say that sme sort of simple mechanical mechanism, say, isn't responsible for the creation of extra energy? If that is so, and the observations at the very least point to that, then Plasma cosmology has no need for a beginning that occured in the past which doesn't exist anymore. Now is all that is happening, and now always what was happening. Now does not have a beginning, or an end, See Schroedinger. That is how the domain of Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning.

Plasma cosmology does not require a beginning without a cause.

ASSUMPTION THREESince every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.

Is this right? Doesn't "evolving" mean evolving from what? If so we are at the beginning again. What does "evolve" really mean? It comes from Darwin, and he meant it to mean from simple to complex. That much is obvious, How this happens is not so obvious. Accidently? Self organization? Does plasma cosmology assume the Universe evolves? What do we mean when we say Universe in this context? If we mean that the parts of the Universe are evolving are we also meaning the Univertse as a whole is evolving?

At any rate, assumptions are taken as true without proof, so we don't need to justify the assumption. However, Plasma cosmology does not assume evolution, it describes it. Tommy Mandel 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Working my way into the article, I added Hubble's thoughts on standard interpretations of his law, and also added Tifft's quantized redshift. Interesting that these were left out, they are key evidence. Then I got to this

You cannot just add commentary onto an article without providing justification for the subjects and citations to the more controversial assertions. Redshift quantization is definitely a subject that deserves discussion in Wikipedia, but I don't think this is the page for it. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning, one of the major assumptions of the standard theory is that redshift is Doppler induced. This leads to the conjecture of expansion. A quantized redshift is not consistent with a Doppler interpretation which predicts a random distribution, as well as expansion, which would blur the spectral lines. Without expansion there is no need to go back in time for the beginning. And this is one of PC's assumptions - there was no big bang moment. Quantized redshift is observational evidence which supports our assumption. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?

I acknowledge and agree that commentary should be justified and backed up with proper citations. What you are asking is to essentially write a scientific paper, and to top it off, you want it in a couple sentences. OK.

In his paper titled REDSHIFT PERIODICITIES, THE GALAXY-QUASAR CONNECTION, W. G. Tifft discusses his observations of quantized redshift. He write:

"Modern cosmology presumes to understand the cosmic redshift as a simple continuous Doppler-like effect caused by expansion of the Universe. In fact there is considerable evidence indicating that the redshift consists of, or is dominated by, an unexplained effect intrinsic to galaxies and quasars."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613

This was confirmed by M.B. Bell1 and S.P. Comeau1 as reported in their paper "Further Evidence for Quantized Intrinsic Redshifts in Galaxies: Is the Great Attractor a Myth?" They write in their abstract: "Evidence was presented recently suggesting that the Fundamental Plane (FP) clusters studied in the Hubble Key Project may contain quantized intrinsic redshift components that are related to those reported by Tifft. Here we report the results of a similar analysis using 55 spiral (Sc and Sb) galaxies, and 36 Type Ia supernovae (SnIa) galaxies. We find that even when many more objects are included in the sample there is still clear evidence that the same quantized intrinsic redshifts are present and superimposed on the Hubble flow." Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305112

And Napier W.M A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift 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 periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them." Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)

So what is producing the redshift?

"The CREIL effect is not a simple coherent Raman effect, but a SET of related coherent Raman effects (each one producing a frequency shift without any blur of the images and the spectra) such that the efficient gas is not ex- or de-excited, playing the role of a catalyst (this role is common in coherent spectroscopy: happily, in a crystal which doubles the frequency of a laser beam, no heat is produced, which would break the crystal). The transfers of energy which produce the frequency shifts increase the entropy of the set of interacting beams. You can find papers including references in arxiv.org, section "physics" numbers 0503070 and 0507141. An more recent paper is in AIP conference proceedings #822 (in press)."

http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.pdf

A Major Cosmic Surprise: New Cosmic Model Predicts Enhanced Brightness of Galaxies, SN, Quasars and GRBs With z > 10 Robert V. Gentry∗ The Orion Foundation, P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912 (Dated: April 1, 2002)

Bahcall [1] has enthused “The Big Bang is bang on” because recent Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) measurements [2] at z = 2.34 match its prediction of 9.1 K. He laments, however, this means he and like-minded colleagues will now miss the excitement of searching for a new cosmic model. His lament is premature. This Letter explores the exciting prospect that the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI), a relatively new cosmic model [3], equally qualifies as being ‘bang on,’ first because it accounts for the 2.73 K CBR locally, plus the more recent measurements at z = 2.34 and z = 3.025 [4]. Secondly, because it provides a new explanation of the enhanced brightness of high-z supernovae [5], and the dipole velocity distribution of radiogalaxies [6]. Thirdly, because it makes brightness predictions for even higher redshift (z > 10) objects that strongly suggest they should be detectable. And fourthly because, in a report that has thus far received scant attention [7], I describe what may be a potentially exciting discovery of evidence showing GPS operation reveals the universe is governed relativistically by Einstein’s static solution of the field equations, with its fixed in-flight photon wavelength (λ) prediction, and not big bang’s Friedmann-Lemaitre (F-L) solution, with its hypothesized in-flight λ variation and cosmological redshifts. Unless this discovery is refuted, then: (i) It follows that cosmological redshifts – upon which all of big bang is hinged – are not genuine physical phenomena and, (ii) an alternative astrophysical framework of the cosmos must exist that incorporates the Einstein static solution with its fixed in-flight λ, along with radically different initial conditions. " Tommy Mandel 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Joshua, now what? How can we perfect this presentation such that it will meet with your approval in all the relevant entries of Wikipedia? Would you like me to summarize all of them? Right now, their own words are doing a good job. Perhaps you would like more? The above are the original sources, I've got plenty of interpretations we could discuss.

Also, I presume that you are a man of integrity, so it goes without saying that you favor the correct theory and disfavor the incorrect theory. Am I correct? So then you must agree that, in principle, quantized redshift (an observation) is infered/implied/predicted by the correct theory, and is not infered/implied/predicted by the incorrect theory. Correct?

Let me try it this way.

William Tifft observed a periodicity or quantization of the cosmological redshift. This was later confirmed by Bell and Comeau, and statistically verified by Napier. Tifft contends that while the standard theory presumes redshift to have a Doppler cause, a quantized redshift would seem to rule this interpretation out.

Do you agree that this accurately reflects the literature? Now, let's go to the subsequent implications...

Without a Doppler redshift, no basis for expansion exists. Without expansion, the big bang is not a plausible explanation for the evolution of the Universe. This leaves, as alternate theories, the non-standard cosmologies as the only acceptable theory.

Certainly, Joshua, these conclusions which nullify the standard theory, and justify the non-standard theories, one of which is Plasma Cosmology, must be, in order to preserve neutrality, inserted in all the appropriate places. So let us continue with your criticisms...Tommy Mandel 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy to plasma cosmology still not explained. --ScienceApologist 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plasma cosmology conforms to every observed phenomenon except one. It does not account for the Hubble redshift, the very phenomenon (and the only one) that led to the development of the Big Bang. Dr. Lerner gives several theories that attempt to explain the Hubble shift in terms of the plasma universe, but none are firmly rooted in observed fact, like plasma theory itself. Fortunately, it does not matter. In architectural terms, the Big Bang is an incorrect structure. A broad, complex theory rests on an extremely narrow foundation, in fact, just one brick (the Hubble shift). The plasma universe, meanwhile, rests on an extremely broad foundation of observation. It does not require the creation of any new, exotic building materials, just the reliable concrete and steel of ordinary physics. If the "Hubble brick" is not added for a while, the building will not collapse. On the other hand, a light gust of solar wind (made of plasma, naturally) has brought the Big Bang building crashing to the ground. "

From http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbang3.html

Is this better?

Plasma cosmology is widely considered to be an non-standard cosmological theory. The standard theory uses the Doppler interpretation of Redshift to support it's main premise, that the universe expanded from a point beginning. Plasma cosmology does not study such a beginning because it assumes that expansion did not take place. Quantized redshift in the standard theory is an anomaly. Expansion and quantization cannot both be true, they are inconsistent with eachother. As such, quantized redshift constitutes a falsification of expansion and by imnplication, a falsification of the big bang theory itself. If the standard theory is falsified, it is not a valid scientific theory, leaving, as the only possible theory, plasma cosmology. When plasma cosmology becomes the new standard theory,it will be because quantized redshift was observed. That is how quantized redshift is relevant to plasma cosmology. Not only relevant, it will make it happen. Like it or not SA. Tommy Mandel 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Very insightful of you Art. Tommy Mandel 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

SA doesn't have the freedom to go with the flow. He has to believe that quantized redshift is mistaken, because if quantization is not mistaken, the entire big bang is mistaken. Recall that Hubble denied expansion, and attributed redshift to unknown causes. Those causes are well known in spectrocoptics witness the CREIL effect. Also recall that efforts to refute quantized redshift resulted in the opposite conclusion. Did you bother to read the papers cited above?

Tommy Mandel 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just happen to notice that you reverted everything I did. You broke the deal, Joshua, I was going to ignore intrinsic redshift, non-standard cosmology and the big bang itself if you would have only left this alone. I am not bound anymore to stay away from those other entries. Thanks for taking the chains off...

Tommy Mandel 04:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Could you remind us where ScienceApologist agreed to such a deal? Art LaPella 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, above. "Forgive, sounds nice, forget, not sure I could..."

Tommy Mandel 06:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely familiar, but nothing like that quote remains on English Wikipedia. Is it deleted? Is it on another page or archive? Art LaPella 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write it, that's for sure. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a new song just out guys...Tommy Mandel 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the song title is "I Love to Tell the Story". Art LaPella 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Future

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)

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)

I wanted to say that whatever happens, plasma will play a role in any future cosmology. Tommy Mandel 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(Our edits crossed Art, maybe i fixed it, look and see)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting results

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)

"The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled."

Are they saying that gravity and magnetics have something in common? Because if they are, then gravity may be an EMF of some sort...

Tommy Mandel 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

well done

This article has taken some interesting turns. Im glad to see it has continued to shape up in the face of constant criticism and sabatoge by BB proponents. Well done to those who continue to strive for the article! While there is still a lot of misinformation here, it is better than it was before. This is Ionized btw, one of the original plasma cosmologists who helped defend this page. Keep up the good work people! edit: ah well now I see why, thanks to Mr. Lerner and others. awesome