Botoxin wrote:So whose ideas is he trying to keep out of Wikipedia, and why?
He's got his own agenda, apparently.
I assume that in his statement he meant to say "Birkeland currents" or "field-aligned currents" rather than "lightning bolts" stretching across the universe. A quibble perhaps, but probably an important one. IE, the difference between "dark mode" discharges, "glow mode" discharges (neon lights, fluorescent lights, the auroras, "sprites," etc.; yes Mr. Schroeder, they are in fact plasma phenomena!) and "arc mode" (lightning bolts, static electric sparks, etc.).
I might also point out that he has occasionally intimated on Wikipedia that
he only considers plasma to be plasma when it is "fully ionized" and "charge separated" and thus the electrical stuff becomes more influential. He seems to ignore weakly- or partially-ionized plasma in favor of "fully-ionized plasma." But it seems like he wants to leave out the lower ionization states because they're inconvenient. He's also asserted that the photosphere / chromosphere are "gaseous" and that plasma shouldn't be mentioned in those regions 'cause they're "too cold" and "too weakly ionized." Why then, do so many solar physicists routinely speak of "photospheric plasma," "chromospheric plasma," etc. in the peer-reviewed journal literature?
His assertion that the main idea of the Electric Universe model is a "conspiracy theory" is just so much pandering nonsense. The main i9dea is simply that electrical interactions play a large role in astronomical / cosmological interactions than is currently recognized by the mainstream, due to prior incorrect assumptions (The universe is not a "vacuum" it's composed primarily of matter in the plasma state! Plasmas can in fact develop features such as "double layers" that separate regions of differing composition, temperature, charge, etc.). In light of newer understandings of the composition of the universe, it is necessary to revisit and update/eliminate outdated ideas that are simply no longer supported.
As to the "math showing it's impossible," I wonder what assumptions he's basing his calculations off of. As I recall, many such maths A) Assume the matter all started out "neutral" and thus thus some force must act upon it in order to separate it, electrically. B) Do not take into account plasma effects / structures such as "double layers" which others have pointed out CAN in fact maintain charge separation (among other things).
If one did not ASSUME the Big Bang as a given, is it not possible that an alternate theory might state that charges STARTED separated and have simply been re-combining into a more "neutral" form over time. As opposed to starting "neutral" and having to be
somehow pulled apart? Schroeder seems to have perhaps not considered all of his assumptions and how they might NOT be appropriate under a differing model with different foundational assumptions. But, I understand that thinking outside of one's own box is difficult, so I don't entirely fault him for it.
It's mildly amusing that Schroeder talks of pseudoscience, and fails to recognize the untested hypothetical kludges currently encumbering his own Standard Model / Big Bang. IE, inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, etc. All of which are simply "imagined" / "theoretical" constructs based upon ambiguous data (rhythmic patterns in received radiation, fluctuations in timing or intensity) and maths that haven't all been physically tested / reproduced in the lab. Granted, some of the things CANNOT be tested in the lab, simply due to the energies, or scope involved. However, that does not absolve the model of being based upon things which haven't been proven or tested in the lab (note: computer simulations are nice, but generally can't count as "proof"
per se, since computer algorithms adhere to the law of GIGO or "Garbage In, Garbage Out"; if the algorithm is wrong then the results most likely will be too, even if they do "look pretty / elegant").
Schroeder also seem to pull a few no-nos on Wikipedia as well, with respect to inserting his own POV or pushing to throw out references that he personally disagrees with or finds uncomfortable. He probably won't admit to it, or will make some roundabout excuse to say, "well sure, it's published in an academic journal, and it's peer-reviewed, but I think nobody pays attention to that journal, so it should be excluded." Sure he'll make it sound scientific by Wikilawyering to say that WP shouldn't give "undue weight" to "low-impact journals" or some other nonsense. Knowing full-well that "impact metrics" are a dime a dozen, imperfect, and will vary based on any of a hundred factors, whether you're talking regional (in the USA) or world-wide, over what time frame you're talking about (one or two years, or long terms over 10 years). Or he'll argue that "such and such an article was published in an EE journal rather than a cosmology journal, so it's low-impact from the standpoint of cosmology." It's a great tactic, and to some degree I even understand the logic behind it. If one publishes in an EE journal, the cosmology community might not notice. But, on the other hand, if you're an EE publishing for your peers an article on space plasma, should the article be published in a journal on plasma geared toward EE's or in a journal on space geared toward cosmologists? This seems to be a gray area that SA like to exploit to kick papers out of articles.
In my opinion, as the sciences advance and get closer to agreement on certain basic physics, processes, structures, behaviors, inevitably there will be disciplinary overlap. IE, notable papers on plasma physics may in fact render opinions on or implications toward space physics or cosmology. How should we categorize these things? Should or can the articles be cross-published to multiple journals? Or is keywording a paper sufficient for notability in the respective fields, regardless of the journal something was published in?
IE, if an article has implications both for the field of plasma physics and for the field of astrophysics but is only published in a journal that addresses one of the two fields should that
de facto exclude it from consideration by scientists of the other field? In my view, no. That can't and shouldn't be the case.
Likewise, if an article is rejected from a "top tier" journal due to space limitations or some other factor, and it is published in a slightly more obscure journal (second-tier, perhaps) does that automatically exclude it from being a paper of note? In an ideal world, no it shouldn't.
Science should not be
elitist. There should not be any ego involved in the process. A paper is not more or less valid because it was published in a more "
elite" journal. Popularity
should not and really
CANNOT define reality (if the current consensus was that the sky is regularly the color currently commonly called purple at noon, that does not make the sky any less blue at noon on a regular basis; "consensus" is not necessarily
correct).
If someone gets it "
exactly right" but it is rejected by the most prestigious journal simply because it disagrees on some fundamental assumption that the prestigious journal holds "
sacred" it neither invalidates the premise or results of the paper in question. Truth / correctness is not a
function of popularity. Unfortunately, science currently appears to be something of a
popularity contest. People try to get their work into the most prestigious journals on the assumption that getting in makes them "more correct" or "more prestigious" than the guy who got rejected and had to go somewhere else to publish. It seems to be something of a failing of the system right now. That's just my not-quite-humble opinion on the issue.
Granted, again, those lower-tier journals may not achieve the same mental penetration as the top tier journals. But again, overall penetration into the herd mentality does not necessarily equate to "correctness."
I suppose I'll leave off there for now.
~Michael Gmirkin
