Wikipedia & casting plasma cosmology in a bad light

[mharratsc]

Why is Wikipedia's (an open database) entry coverying plasma cosmology not being updated with the full story? I've been reading the info at plasmacosmology.net and thunderbolts.info and I am intrigued. I decided to traipse over to the wikipedia.org site, and the information that is posted there is obviously written by a standard cosmology proponent whom uses just enough 'inquiring observer' verbage to sound like he's a scientific methodologist, yet is there to cast the utmost aspersion on the entire topic.

Hasn't anyone with a background thought to post a relevant counter-point to that article?? Other controversial topics are allowed a pro/con format, why not Plasma Cosmology?

Note- I *am* new here, so if this has been discussed into the ground previously, forgive me. I did a search for 'wikipedia' here on the forums and found nothing directly related to the wikipedia article itself.

Thanks,

Mike H.

[Solar]

That is a long an involved story. Fortunately, a website called "Suppression, Censorship, and Dogmatism in Science" chronicled an interesting story entitled:

"September 20, 2005 - Deep Impact and the creation of Scientific Myth" (scroll down):

Mainstream investigators have already come up with an ad-hoc hypothesis to explain this double flash and to avoid the embarrasing admission that the Electric Universe turned out to be superior in predicting impact events.

Despite that resounding predictive success the end of that particular piece links to the debate at Wikipedia with regard to the validity of the Electric Universe hypothesis, which was subsequently removed from Wiki altogether via a rather viscous movement via proponents of the "standard model". Similar disputes over Plasma Cosmology - click on the "discussion" tab at the top of the article page.

Thankfully Ian constructed Plasma-Universe.com. Use that and or the link to the TPOD articles in my signature.

[mharratsc]

I now know that it wasn't so much a 'debate' as it was a full-scaled brawl to get the article posted in any shape or form. Sad, really.

I will state one thing about how the article reads. It seems like the 'factual representation' of the theories underlying plasma cosmology are taken in context from the pioneering works of early theorists, and yet none of the data that supports plasma cosmology are presented. This gives a very skewed and unbalanced perception of the topic. Analogously, if gravity cosmology had been presented in a similar vein, we'd have references in the article to Newton and his apples

To state that 'mathematicians rule' in dictating what is politically correct in the venue is the greatest understatement of the new Millenium. Formulae and 'MY model showed...' do not constitute physical proof in any science. Thus, to state that there have been dozens or even hundreds of supporting 'formula' means nothing as proof, then the plasma cosmologists suggesting that cosmological events apparently behave as do known and established behaviors of electric plasmas as observed in controlled experiments should have no less value.

At least in my thinking. But I'm not a mainstream scientist, and I'm not so good at math that I can be that 'creative'...

Mike H.

[Solar]

I now know that it wasn't so much a 'debate' as it was a full-scaled brawl to get the article posted in any shape or form. Sad, really.

Yes it is sad. I was trying to be diplomatic by using the word "debate".

I will state one thing about how the article reads. It seems like the 'factual representation' of the theories underlying plasma cosmology are taken in context from the pioneering works of early theorists, and yet none of the data that supports plasma cosmology are presented. This gives a very skewed and unbalanced perception of the topic. Analogously, if gravity cosmology had been presented in a similar vein, we'd have references in the article to Newton and his apples

Oh there were plenty enough links in the "Notes" and "Reference" section of Wiki's Plasma Cosmology article. Once you begin to research the subject you'll find that more data is to be found under such topics as:

"Astrophysical Plasma"

"Space Plasma"

"Space Weather"

"Plasma Astrophysics"

"Cosmic Plasma"

Or type such phrases in arXiv.org if you want zee paypahs. Here is an example using just the word 'Plasma'

I love the heading of "Perspectives on Plasma":

Gravity was the focus of
20th century astrophysics
For the 21st century, it will be
electromagnetism and plasmas in addition.

This forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment.

But don't wait for 'mainstream' cosmology/astrophysics to render a qualitative assessment of the Plasma Universe for you like they've done with the big bang etc. They won't because, for them, it would result in turning their back on the gravitational model. Thornhill et al have provided plenty of qualitative "seeds" for thought and one can further that on their own via self oriented continuing research. That's actually the fun part Go for it.

[mharratsc]

Oh, I've been doing my own reading, alright I appreciate the professional quality of the information most of the Plasma folks put out by contrast to the "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?" approach by most of the other sites (Solar model posted by University of Montana I think it was?)

Lordy.

"Hi, I'm a professional teacher, and I'm hear to explain to you what someone explained to me about the Sun, and to skip over the most glaring failure of a model EVER in the history of science (How does energy pass through a barrier that is at a temp of 6000 K without further energizing it to create a layer of plasma above it that is at 2,000,000 K... with the disclaimer "Scientists are puzzled by..."?? No speculation? No alternative? "My model is right, it just isn't complete yet" ... nice argument. That is truly revolting scientific method, in my opinion.

Course, I'm not a scientist... I'm just intelligent. The fusion model lacks intelligence. The plasmas are visible. The polarities are visible. The ionic ejection is visible. Well- if you have ions moving one direction, where are the electrons in your model??

I studied Basic Electricity & Electronics back in the Navy, and *they* taught us that much! Don't these astrophysicists have to take any *Physics* for their degrees??

*Snort*

I smell a paradigm shift in the wind. If you smart fellas stand fast and keep calling the mainstream 'stupid!' long enough, the new kids in the field will start listening. You fellas on the plasma cosmology team aren't fighting a battle of Science- rather, you're fighting a battle of Sociology. Once this generation falls, the next generation should be more receptive.

I applaud you gents regardless- not just for the intellect, but also for the guts and determination to stand fast and weather the storm of idiotic reprisal!

Mike H.

[keeha]

While expanding earth is not as solid a theory as general EU theory, the wiki page still needs to resort to tricks for slander.

The wikipedia section on expanding earth uses multiple visuals that compresses the planet down much smaller than the size when the continental plates lock together and I have not seen this on any other site on the topic. And adds restrictive straw men to knock down, like the theory REQUIRES NO subduction, then 10% of the web page goes on to talk about subduction. The fact that the continental plates do fit together surprisingly well on a smaller sphere is not mentioned, until the very end of the article when it says a comics artist believes this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

[Solar]

Wikipedia is like any other would be "source" of information. You take it with a pinch of salt. Aetherometry has also had it's unfavorable dealings therein:

Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance