Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:31, 26 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2003–Sept 2005) Archive 2 (Sept–November 2005) Archive 3 (Nov–December 2005) Archive 4 (January–March 2006) Archive 5 (March 2006) Archive 6 (March–June 2006) Archive 7 (June–December 2006) Archive 8 (Dec 2006–March 2007) Archive 9 (April 2007–July 2009) Archive 10 (August 2009–April 2012)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Edit History

Orrerysky - changed word: "rejected" to "unknown" - no polling organization has performed any kind of sociological analysis to make this conclusion.

Arianewiki1 - reverted 1

Orrerysky - changed word: "rejected" to "unknown" - no polling organization has performed any kind of sociological analysis to make this conclusion. ; Issued a Dispute Resolution ticket

Arianewiki1 - reverted 2

Orrerysky - informed Arianewiki1 of a 3 reversion rule & restored "unknown" until resolution of Dispute Ticket - Polling Organization required.

Orrerysky (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump - didn't like the verbage for unknown

Orrerysky - following AndyTheGrump's request that Unknown verbage could be confusing, removed sociological references.

Arianewiki1 - Reverted 3

Arianewiki1 has abused the Revert option, using it 3 times in a 24 hr period. He has been notified on his talk page. Please take measures to enforce 3xReversion rule. Orrerysky (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Objection

This article is incredibly biased and spends too much space making assertions about other models than it does educating readers about Plasma Cosmology. There are a variety of errors and plenty of irrelevant information. This entry appears to have been written by an individual with very little information on the topic and requires further input from a professional more closely associated with the topic. Orrerysky 20:48, November 23, 2013‎ (UTC)

See the warnings and instructions on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Orrerysky:, the problem is that such professionals would not be reliable sources if they exist, as this is a fringe topic. It may be that some such professionals do not consider parts of this article as being "plasma cosmology", but all of it is reported by reliable sources as being "plasma cosmology". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Recommend you read this Orrerysky. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:DJBarney24/WikiProject_Plasma_Cosmology Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This article makes the claim that Plasma Cosmology is mostly rejected but provides no polling data to support this claim. Who was hired to perform this poll? Where is the reference to the poll? This statement has no support. I have conducted an extensive search and have found no data indicating that any scientific poll was ever conducted to gauge public acceptance of "Plasma Cosmology", how did the poll define "Plasma Cosmology"? This page says it has not been properly defined so how do you reject something you can't define? This comment is highly dubious and has only encouraged the contentious edit warring that has taken place. It is irrelevant and unnecessary towards education of the topic. Orrerysky (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mostly rejected, and reasonably so. I.e. Plasma cosmology features in few peer-review astronomical/ cosmology articles or textbooks, while the 'Big Bang' is widely covered. Plasma cosmology has been mostly rejected because it utterly fails in its predictions against the observational evidence. No poll needs to be taken, because astronomical theory is based on scientific precepts not by polls or opinion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I support Orrerysky. It would be best to change from "mostly rejected" to "mostly unknown". Wavyinfinity —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the available data I believe that Orrerysky is right to say it should say "mostly unknown" as opposed to "mostly rejected".Keyriced (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the exact same error as the statement mostly rejected is the paragraph

Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or accepted cosmological theory.

This paragraph should also be removed as there is no sociological or anthropological polling data of scientists to back-up this statement. Plasma Cosmology & other models are not mutually exclusive. Plasma Cosmology is the study of astrophysical plasma. One could easily say that other models fall under the category of Plasma Cosmology, as other models theorize that they can derive the nature of the Universe from the study of radiation emitted from cosmic plasma. Example, examining radiation from cosmic plasma, Inflation Theorists believe that they can calculate the age of the universe. this very simple fact implies that the Inflation Theory can actually be considered a Plasma Cosmology model. Other models under the Plasma Cosmology umbrella make no such calculations, and fringe models believe that they are capable of proving that the Universe is recreated every second. However, each of these models deal with the study of astrophysical plasmas and what they reveal about the cosmological structure of the universe. The current wording in the current article is irrelevant, inaccurate, and unsupported by scientific sociological studies. Supporting the existing wording in the article is irrational. Orrerysky (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

While it is good to be passionate with topics of knowledge, I do caution you with your current actions. I'd suggest you heed the wisdom of other Users here, because your current aggressiveness will likely get you into far more trouble. Consensus will certainly get you more support.

As to your suggestion; "...the Inflation Theory can actually be considered a Plasma Cosmology model" is plainly divisive and quite wrong. (This statement is clearly your opinion, and has no real citation or reference to support it. Clearly no astronomer or cosmologist would agree with such a unfounded statement.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that the idea of a particular model falling under the Cosmological Study of Astrophysical Plasma is somehow divisive. Do you have any evidence to support this sociological claim? A paper in a respectable sociological Journal perhaps? Do you disagree that theorists of various models do not study radiation from cosmic plasma in order to theorize about the age of the universe? Do you propose now that such theorists do not study cosmic plasma in order to determine various characteristic of the cosmos, including those who attempt to study such phenomenon in order to try and determine size & age? Orrerysky (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Cosmic plasma"? So what is the definition of "cosmic plasma"? Is it the same as "Astrophysical plasma"? Your using terms to trick people to think plasma cosmology is more important than it is current held in cosmology. Plasma cosmology is clearly 'fringe" science because marginally important and is against accept theory.

Also your statement is plainly divisive because "Inflation Theory" is quite unrelated to "Plasma Cosmology." I.e. The article Inflation (cosmology) doesn't even mention the word plasma or plasma cosmology! Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no linguistic support in any language or dictionary to imply that "fringe" = "against". Example, the development of the "Clock of the Long Now" is fringe, but that does not imply that it is opposed to some "Clock of the Short Now", The music of Lady Gaga is "fringe" that does not mean it is "against Elvis". You insist on mangling the English language to advance a very suspect ulterior motive in order to mislead people about a field of scientific inquiry. Fringe =! reject, Fringe =! against. You are inventing these associations, quite wrongly I might add. Also, cosmic plasma is "plasma located in space" and is interchangeable with "astrophysical plasma. I suggest you calm down as your edit history over the past several months reveals that you should refrain from posting on this topic.Orrerysky (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, if Inflation Theorists believe they can use observations from Plasma to calculate the age or structure of the Universe, then they most definitely are engaging in Plasma Cosmology. Open your eyes, you are blinded by your own inherit biases and need to leave this page to others. Remove the plank from your own eye and whatnot. This is a community site, on a community page. If I need to get a 1000 friends in here from a few facebook groups then I'll be more than happy to build the army. (in a respectful way that complies with the rules of course) Orrerysky (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology Edit Warring

I have moved this from one of my subpages. It belongs here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, please refrain from reverting edits as you did with Plasma Cosmology, this might be misinterpreted as edit warring on your part. My edits were self-edits resulting from making multiple corrections to previously sloppy and poorly created entries. Correcting this topic will take some time. The current edit is sufficient while I work on improving the entry for this advanced science topic. As you pointed out, Edit Warring can result in Administrative action, refrain from reverting back to earlier entries. Feel free to consult with me regarding further edits or changes. Orrerysky 18:07, November 24, 2013‎ (UTC)

I have no interest in this subject. My main concern here is that you discuss your changes. You do not own this article and must therefore collaborate with other editors. Making huge deletions and large edits that are potentially controversial is not acceptable, unless you have already created a consensus for such changes. Per our BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you have been "Reverted" (repeatedly by several editors), and you must now "Discuss" the matter, not continue to try to force your preferred version into the article. That's edit warring. You were warned and instructed in the edit summaries and on your own talk page, yet you persisted. You should be blocked for edit warring.

You have also made strong personal attacks, and you should also be blocked for doing that. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time that you have reverted an edit without explaining your reasoning. If you reverse an edit again without proper collaboration I will need to report you for Edit Warring. This is also the second time you have insulted the integrity of a member's edit without sufficient cause. The edit you keep reverting back to appears to have been made under very dubious circumstances. If you revert the edit back again you will be guilty of Edit Warring behavior and I will need to have you reported and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to report me, but you'll experience the WP:Boomerang effect. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer, also note, that the edits you are referring to were done by Bots. I doubt I can have any conversation with a Bot who was reverting the edit due to not providing an Edit Summary. Since you have no interest in this topic, I trust that you will refrain from your disruptive behavior. Let's get one thing straight, you reverted the change specifically because whether you realized it or not a bot reverted it for not including an Edit Summary. I provided an Edit Summary on a subsequent edit, neutralizing the bot's reason. You will cease and desist immediately and I will not hear from you on this matter again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orrerysky (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Large deletions of content are treated as vandalism. We rarely rewrite articles here, and not by one person alone. We edit collaboratively, usually making small edits. You are not informed enough to start serious editing, especially on controversial topics, so I suggest you read and respond to the concerns expressed on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you are working on a completely new version of the article. That's not how we work. Don't expect to be able to create another article and then just replace this one with that one. We work collaboratively here, so do most of your editing here. You can use the sandbox for smaller matters, just to try them out. Otherwise you're welcome to play around in your sandbox. You may come up with some forms of content which can later be incorporated here, but only after other editors approve it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing problems

This article has ongoing problems because the topic is rather poorly defined by proponents and detractors alike. Alfven's ideas were somewhat all over the map and the best summative explanation of the promise of plasma cosmology was probably Peratt's articles from the 80s and 90s that describe his overarching vision replete with overthrowing cosmology, galactic dynamics, compact object theory, and perhaps even general relativity on the basis of unaccounted for plasma phenomena. Of course, this promise has not borne fruit and the subject is about as moribund as a subject can be. We initially tried to focus on Alfven and Klein's ideas, but others pointed out that their cosmology is somewhat separate from Peratt's proposals and Lerner's book which is probably what the subject actually is.

Quite apart from this are the internet enthusiasts and further out-on-a-limb proposers of such ideas as electric stars, electric machining of planetary surfaces, and electric comets. These ideas are so far removed from academic discourse as to be impossible to document in Misplaced Pages without engaging in heavy original research.

I'm not sure what the solution really is. As is, our article is okay on the subject, but I don't think Misplaced Pages is equipped in its policies to handle a truly good exploration of the topic which would clearly demand a certain level of originality that we just cannot accommodate.

So that's where we are. New suggestions about things to remove or add would be appreciated. But aside from this, I'm not sure what more can be done with this rather fraught page.

jps (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Working on new article

Hello! I have been working on a new article in My Sandbox and would love any input you can provide on it. From your comments I see that you are definitely interested in something different. The current article suffers from many deficiencies and has outdated information and inspires a lot of hostility. It is also lacks the aesthetic quality of a respectable encyclopedia. My Sandbox effort should provide a great replacement and I hope to have your support.

Examples of outdated features:

1. 3x10^18 Amp currents have been observed. (See My Sandbox),
2. Plasma Cosmology isn't mostly rejected, is there some scientific poll to support that statement? I don't recall getting a poll from Zogby on the matter. When was the scientific poll conducted? A more accurate statement would be mostly unknown
3. There is little details as the article spends more time addressing criticisms from confused people than actually presenting Plasma Cosmology.
4. Take a look at the Lambda-CDM article, not a single mention of criticisms from these so-called Plasma Cosmologists are listed there. Why the double standard? An Encyclopedia should make a presentation about the topic, not a presentation about the debate about the topic and disagreements and debates about "what it all means?"

I hope my revisions will have your support. Orrerysky (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some problems with this article. The solution is to fix it, not to create a new article which is not on the watchlists of all the editors who might be watching this article. They should have the opportunity to influence any changes as they are made, and that can only be done here. Just fix the errors, using proper sources. If there are any problems, others will revert or improve your edits and discussion here will move things forward. That's called collaborative editing, which is how we work. Solo editing rarely works well, unless it's minor tweaks of an uncontroversial nature. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is something important to read: Misplaced Pages:Be_bold#..._but_please_be_careful.21 -- Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

——

Orrerysky. All your "examples" you request for support (and much of your sandbox) are irrelevant to the topic of plasma cosmology.

Plasma cosmology is mostly rejected by astronomers or cosmologists because it simply does not match the observations. I.e. Evidence shows that the Universe is finite, not infinite. There is little evidence of strong, coherent or sizeable magnetic fields in the creation of the universe (or there after), and this is not at all related to the cosmic background radiation. Birkeland currents do not exist on the cosmological scales, and there is zero evidence to support it.

The largest astrophysical current was from a radio galaxy 3C 303, being a polar jet. How is this related at all related to the subject of plasma cosmology?

Your sandbox says; "...Plasma Cosmology models like ΛCDM (Lambda-CDM) theorize." This is a completely misleading statement, as the rejection of plasma cosmology is based on the actual strength of the Lambda-CDM predictions/observations. The 'standard theory' is based on its predictive strength., which 'plasma cosmology' openly fails. Stating Lambda-CMD is a form of plasma cosmology theory is plainly silly.

Criticism of plasma cosmology ended the arguments for support for it 20 years ago. Big Bang cosmology has had published papers until the current day. The last true astrophysical paper of plasma cosmology was in the 1990s. Among astronomers and cosmologists, the overwhelming majority have rejected plasma cosmology, and only a few IEEE members (outside the astronomical/cosmological discipline) seem to consider it as relevant.

You say "Plasma Cosmology isn't mostly rejected, is there some scientific poll to support that statement? I don't recall getting a poll from Zogby on the matter. When was the scientific poll conducted? A more accurate statement would be mostly unknown. "

Wrong. It is mostly rejected by astronomers and cosmologists who do not support plasma cosmology. If it were supported there would be more published astronomical/ cosmological papers on it, but there have been none since the 1990s.

Your sandbox covers much on plasma related topics, but little of it has to do with the actual topic of 'plasma cosmology. Moreover, "Plasma cosmology" is not the broader ideas of the so-called "Electric Universe." You, like most of the proponents of these ideas who have tried and edited this wiki article, confuse (probably deliberately) this topic by explaining things well beyond it preview. A really good example is you saying "Plasma Cosmology is the scientific study of astrophysical plasma for local and large distant structures in the Universe." Cosmological theory is the study of the origin and fate of the universe. "Electric universe" is actually a subject of cosmogony - dealing with the origin of particular astronomical objects. I.e. The sun.

Your sandbox also mention Winton H. Bostick who mostly theorised of the magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. This has been rejected completely by astronomy and cosmology as wrong, as the fields have been shown localised and non-coherant (polarisation measures) , and not being sufficiently strong enough to influence galaxy evolution. I.e. The magnetic field lines do not follow the spiral arms as Bostick does predict. Also Bostick's two papers on galaxies appeared in 1982 and 1988, though the central tenants of this appear by him in 1957 and 1958. His modified Hubble expansion paper was again published in "Laser and Particle Beams" and notably not in an recognised astrophysical or cosmological journal.

In essence, your 'revisions' or 'changes' do not have my support because they are manifestly wrong and are likely motivated by bias and not any established fact. Lack of objectivity will certainly not win you any friends or supporters. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Arianewiki1, not only are the majority of your comments utterly wrong, a quick check of this topic sees that you are one of the very individuals guilty of the edit warring taking place. I wonder if it my entry that is biased, or your's. In fact, the answer to that question is quite obvious. I am going to seek to have you banned from further contributions to this article. Orrerysky (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Threats against other contributors is a big no no. Suggest you carefully read WP:CIV and WP:PERSONAL. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New Page Requested

This Page must be replaced, it is outdated, inaccurate, highly contentious, poorly phrased, poorly researched, and shows too much infighting. As an encyclopedia this page should be about the topic, not about the debate about the topic. I am creating a replacement page that I hope might please all parties involved. Please talk with me about improvement to my effort at My Sandbox. Orrerysky (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, not an ordinary encyclopedia. Our articles are quite different. When we say "about plasma cosmology," we include far more than any other encyclopedia would likely include. We aren't just another encyclopedia. We present the topic, including anything written about the subject in reliable sources. That will include debates about the topic, controversies, opposing POV, etc.. In that sense, Misplaced Pages articles can cover much more territory than other encyclopedias. We have a much larger scope. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is perfectly OK and surmises the current lack of astrophysical/ cosmological support for 'plasma cosmology.' The so-called infighting reflects the conflict with an biassed agenda-driven group with the available facts. Much of what already be suggested for the replacement page an Orrerysky's sandbox is either incorrect, lack sufficient evidence, and much of it is totally unrelated to 'plasma cosmology.' Frankly, "your effort" so far greatly lacks both insight and understanding.

From the long history of the evolution of this article, it is clear that much effort has been made to explain why plasma cosmology has been so openly rejected. It looks piecemeal because people are trying to compromise against a crazy fringe of individuals hell-bent in ramming through their unfound and unsupported views - that have been proved time and again mostly wrong or in being caught twisting the facts.

Worst Orrerysky has already violated the three times edit warring policy, and by all rights should be immediately blocked. Brangifer has already explained this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Arianewiki1, from a quick look at the edit history, edit warring appears to be your fortè. You should refrain yourself until the Dispute Resolution ticket I have created has been resolved. Orrerysky (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and you should refrain from making such threats. Please provide evidence to support any of your claims:

1. Cosmology is a study of origin, and not the cosmos.
2. Sociological & Anthropological Studies on the cosmological views of the public including questionairres regarding the acceptability of the study of astrophysical plasma.
3. That the universe has been proven 'finite'
4. That Winston H. Bostick's experiments simulating the formation of Galaxies isn't cosmology related.
5. That you aren't camping this article to push a biased agenda in order to suppress and discourage development of a legitimate scientific field of research. Orrerysky (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

'Mostly unknown' doesn't even make sense...

How can a cosmological model be 'mostly unknown'? This simply makes no sense. Regardless of the merits of the word 'rejected', at least it actually tells the readers something. Whereas telling them that the model is 'mostly unknown' is hopelessly vague. Unknown by whom? And what is it that the people that don't know don't know? I suggest that those behind this edit actually consider our readers, who aren't a part of this silly edit war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree that these sociological statements don't belong in this article. 'rejected' isn't supported and tells the reader nothing. 'unknown' in this context merely refers to the social standing of the theory, in that "most people do not know about it" Being that there has been no real drive to educate or poll the public on this topic, it is impossible to know. Until a proper poll from a polling organization is conducted I move that both "rejected" and "unknown" be removed completely. As well as the speculation regarding consensus. These are speculatory statements about sociological acceptance and are really irrelevant to educating the reader about Plasma Cosmology. Orrerysky (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I wrote on the current

The topic entitled plasma cosmology is placed under Fringe physics and Fringe science.

Here the Fringe science article says; "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline."

Logically, plasma cosmology to most astronomers and cosmologists is therefore correct in saying "Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model,... " I.e. We know plasma cosmology is consider fringe science.

Changing the word "Unknown" is incorrect has a completely different implication. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Orrerysky, What the heck do you mean by "I agree that these sociological statements don't belong in this article". I said no such thing - do not put words into my mouth. And no, a statement that a scientific theory is rejected isn't a 'sociological' statement. It is a statement about the assessment of a theory within the relevant scientific field. Scientists are expected to hold opinions about the validity of theories - and it is a major part of their job to concur with or reject such theories. That is what scientist do. If you want to argue that the statement that 'plasma cosmology is mostly rejected' isn't properly sourced, do so - but cut out the irrelevant nonsense about 'sociology'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect again Arianewiki1, 'unknown' indicates that most people are not aware of the concept in order to give an opinion. Furthermore, "fringe" is not a statement of acceptance or rejecting. A 'fringe' theory is not a 'rejected' theory. The two terms are completely unrelated despite your efforts to try and somehow weave them together. I require polling data from a Polling Organization. I agree that neither "unknown" nor "rejected" have any place in the article. I propose that until a Polling Organization conducts a scientific survey that the statement regarding 'social status' (rejected, accepted, unknown) be omitted along with Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or accepted cosmological theory. This is a Sociological Argument that must be backed by legitimate Sociological Research and no such research exists to my knowledge and this line of thought is a red-herring that distracts the reader from trying to accomplish their goal of learning about the topic. Orrerysky (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose what you like - that isn't the way Misplaced Pages works. Contributors don't get to demand new sources - we write articles according to what material we have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no material on the sociological acceptance. Please cite the polling organization you used to derive the statements you are supporting. You based your article on "material" so please cite the material. Orrerysky (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't based 'my article' on anything. It isn't 'my article'. As far as I can recall, I've not edited it except to revert your muddled statement about the theory being 'mostly unknown'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Astronomy articles
• Mid-importance Astronomy articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance