Misplaced Pages

• 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

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

WP Censorship as a Manifestation of fear

Misplaced Pages will lose any semblance of credibility if authoritarian censorship prevails. Pseudoscience and Fringe Science have replaced the term "Witchcraft" here in the late Dark Ages. Alternative models have become the new "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" and Peer Review the new Canon of the Papal Throne. An organised team of Guerrilla Skeptics http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.co.uk/ who have produced a training video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJT9mp0j have seized hundreds of articles on Misplaced Pages, and taken on the role of sycophancy of the mainstream, defenders of the faith.

The evidence is contained in the edit history from 2006 to the present, for all the world to see. The censors can never erase this permanent record - containing every edit and revert ever made. Readers are encouraged to search diligently through the article history and come to their own conclusions, without having their science spoon-fed to them through the sieve of authoritarian censorship by self anointed little Mussolinis.217.208.57.69 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

_{Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.}

• • 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)
  • Archive 11 (May 2012–Current)

An 'undo' edit war has commenced, between propagandists for The Standard Theory, and researchers for Plasma Cosmology, where defenders of BBT attempt to refute Plasma Cosmology and censor any new information which cancels out previous criticisms. Censorship of information both relevant and moreover essential to a topic is unacceptable.

Comments such as : "(IP editor: please take this to talk. You'll have to come up with reliable 3rd party sources if you think Marmet's work deserves mentioning here.)" by Parejkoj

Misplaced Pages does not require a multitude of sources for citations, 1 scientific paper is enough. The opinion of Parejkoj does not decide what "is" and "is not" a reliable source? By this protocol - any source which disagrees with the Standard Model is an "unreliable source.

(rv last edits by IP: using 1 recent paper to claim that the theory has become mainstream, paper is from journal "Physics Essays" and doesn't mention the word "plasma") by Enric Naval (undo)

Firstly, No entries what-so-ever have been made to suggest that Plasma Cosmology has become mainstream. New, extremely important and relevant information has been added to a topic for readers of the topic to gain comprehensive, updated facts on the subject, which defenders of the Standard Model persist in preventing.

Secondly, The paper refers to photon propagation velocity being reduced in "Gas" Plasma is Gas! - Mass deletion and on Misplaced Pages is vandalism and censorship, both of which are unacceptable.217.208.57.69 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was made by removing "their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.". And then changing "but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed".

You also say "Big Bang supporters claim Plasma Cosmology is at odds with standard explanations",

About changing "but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed", you didn't change the source that supported this statement, and you didn't add any new source for the new text.

Then you take a paper in Physics Essays, a low-impact journal that seems centered on theoretical papers. And you claim that "has revealed the physical interaction which finally solved the problem of non-Doppler redshift". This is an extraordinary claim. If it's really correct, then you will be able to find better sources.

Then you add that Plasma Cosmology doesn't need to explain cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) (why??).

CMBR was not originally a component of BBT, it was claimed as such only after it's discovery in 1964. Sir Arthur Eddington had already calculated the ambient temperature of starlight 40 years earlier, in 1924, at 2.7 Kelvin, which was precisely correct. CMBR is as much evidence for BBT as it is for Plasma Cosmology, a fact which does not quite get through the heads of cheerleaders for BBT.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

They you say that George Gamow predicted 50 kelvin degree, thus making the conclusion that Big Bang is incorrect. But this conclusion is unsourced. And Gamow predicted 5, not 50? And plasma cosmology never made a better prediction? And this says nothing about Plasma Cosmology being right or wrong?

Hardbound Book-reading is presently in serious danger of being superceded by internet searches (more dangerously - primarily on Google). George Gamow's prediction of 5 - 50 Kelvin is there for anyone to read in Gamow's original publication.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The only source you have added is: Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, ,A New Non-Doppler Redshift. But this source doesn't mention Plasma Cosmology, and doesn't cite any plasma cosmologist (Alfven, Klein, Peratt, Lerner.). You elaborate your own original research to apply this paper to Plasma Cosmology!?

You will find that, even in 2014, the vast majority of research work (in scientific journals or otherwise) is not published on the internet, and for good reason.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not censorship. This is rejection of material that has lots of problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is blatent censorship. The material is in fact sourced, cited, and based on proven physics.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, per policy, 'proven physics' consists of physics as recognised by the consensus of mainstream sources on the subject. We are under no obligation whatsoever to provide free publicity for unrecognised fringe theories. And appropriate editorial control isn't censorship. If you want to plug this nonsense, do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, per policy, 'proven physics' consists of physics as recognised by the consensus of mainstream sources on the subject."

Such a statement is as absurd as it is naive. Mainstream Peer Reveiw are on a mission to suppress, discredit and destroy Plasma Cosmology as an obvious threat; And this very same mainstream peer review is going to "recognise" new emperical evidence in direct conflict with the Standard Theory(?)

All Non Standard Theories would remain "Fringe" theories if censored by biased editors.(AndyTheGrump, et al)

Submitting the following as proof of bias Censorship : "19:32, 6 June 2014‎ AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,514 bytes) (-1,321)‎ . . (Undid revision 611843626 by 217.208.57.69 (talk) revert fringe nonsense)" 217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Take your ridiculous conspiracy theories elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Wiki is not a forum; Why then are you treating it as such? The Talk Page is being treated exactly as a Forum, by the very individuals who insist that it is not a forum.

Additionally - Authority over individuals other than oneself exists only in the imagination.

You're bias motivated page blanking reverts have been reported on Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard

This issue will now be resolved through dispute resolution. Suggest you review Wiki policy with regard to contributions made by experts on the subject which are sourced and cited.217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear 217.208.*, I am afraid that you are overestimating the importance of Plasma cosmology. Cosmologists have abandoned this theory simply because the big bang theory explains things better. There is no conspiracy to discredit plasma cosmology.

QUOTE: "The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo." - Hannes Alfvén217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just quote this: " in the mid-1960s (...) The hot big bang relativistic theory became the paradigm of cosmology, and alternative interpretations were marginalized. (...) In spite of the paradigmatic status of the standard big bang model, alternative views remained popular among a minority of cosmologists. (...) Another alternative, worked out by Swedish physicists Oskar Klein and Hannes Alfvén in 1962, assumed the existence of entire galaxies made up of antimatter. These and other alternative theories turned out not to be serious competitors to mainstream big bang theory, and were either abandoned or marginalized. The most fruitful and interesting developments in cosmology since the late 1960s have taken place since within the standard model, inspired by problems generated from within the paradigm. (...) This and other problems have recently caused some cosmologists to declare the big bang theory in a state of crisis. However, since no plausible alternative exists, the almost universal belief in the big bang model has not been seriously shattered. The background radiation is a natural and predictable consequence of the canonical big bang model. (...) Alfvén (1966, 1990) and Klein have for decades opposed the canonical big bang model. (...) Alfvén and his associates have published a number of qualitative discussions of the importance of plasma phenomena in organizing the structure of the universe and in explaining those characteristics of the observable universe that are dealt with by the canonical big bang model. There can be no doubt that much of the material in the universe is in a plasma state, but thus far the plasma model has not been fruitful in producing quantitative explanations or predictions of such characteristics." Norriss S. Hetherington (8 April 2014). Encyclopedia of Cosmology (Routledge Revivals): Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology. Routledge. pp. 467–. ISBN 978-1-317-67766-6. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional note. The IP says that their source talks about "Gas", and "Gas is Plasma". But the source talks about "Interstellar and Intergalactic gases" and "the average density D (atom/m3) of gas in space" and "Assuming that hydrogen is uniformly distributed in space". It says nothing about the gas being in plasma state or in other state. Hint: gas is usually in gaseous state, that's why it's called gas. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are building a strawman. A strawman being an argument based upon a misunderstanding or non-understanding of a principile, typically by a dilettante, rather than an expert in the field. No offence is intended with this statement, many well intentioned and intelligent people have inadvertantly built strawmen. Paul Marmet's paper on non-Doppler redshift was a proof which opened the floodgates to further research, culminating in Plasma Induced Redshift.

Regrettably, this article has become more a source of disinformation than information on the topic of Plasma Cosmology, the article is clearly biased towards the standard paradigm, and has degenerated into a soapbox; The article should therefore be a candidate for deletion.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't censor content because proponents of fringe theories don't like the way we accurately reflect the level of scientific acceptance of the theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not censor content, biased individuals censor content, each according to their own agenda.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ensuring that Misplaced Pages content conforms with policies and guidelines arrived at through consensus after discussions involving thousands of contributors is not 'bias'. And if you wish to promote plasma cosmology, we aren't stopping you - but we are under no obligation whatsoever to permit you to do so here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is a group decision-making process which seeks the consent of all participants. Given that consent of all participants is impossibile in topics of contention with unyealding divisions, there can be no consensus, unless all those opposing a view point 'cease to exist'. The probability that any "proponents" of plasma theory seek promotion on Misplaced Pages is virtually null, within the prevaling atmosphere of open hostility. Moreover, those of whome are actively engaged in acredited research in QMHD are neither 'proponents' nor promoters of a theory, but objective research scientists in pursuit of empirical truth, which is the only real goal of true science. Those who fear the truth have another agenda altogether; this being a primary criterion of bias. In this case there can be no rational discourse, but only ontological argument. There is no such thing as 'collective consciousness', the human species is not a single organism, but a collection of individuals, and each individual is resposible for their own actions, and their own motives. Each individual has authority over themselves and no other. No one can speak for other individuals or claim to know the intentions thereof. No individual can claim such Omnipotence without betraying an obscene level of arrogance.217.208.57.69 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, consensus does not have to be absolute to be consensus. If a single editor has a problem with something that everyone else and the site's policies and guidelines (representing site-wide consensus) agree on, then that one editor is ignored. That one person's consent is sought, but if it's not gained, oh well.

And Misplaced Pages is NOT for promotion. Anyone promoting any scientific theory should get published in peer-reviewed journals, not here.

This article can be regarded as 'anti-promotion' of plasma cosmology. I don't believe any advocates of plasma cosmology find this article interesting, considering the information is 20 years out of date, and can never be updated within existing Misplaced Pages protocols. This article is a dead cow.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fear the truth" is a bigoted strawman used by people who don't know how to make decent arguments.

And you're right, no individual, including you, can claim any sort of omniscience -- that's why Misplaced Pages operates off of consensus and sticks with mainstream peer-reviewed science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

At no time in history have so many of those who fear the truth occupied the top tiers of the peer review process. Strawmen are misguided arguments, not bigots. Bigoted people are bigots, and I don't believe there are any bigots in this discussion. In any case, truth does not need decent arguments to be the truth - the truth comes out eventually whether anyone accepts it or not.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented what I wrote. I said that the statement "those who fear the truth" is both a bigoted statement and a strawman argument, denying the possibility that those who disagree with you might be doing so for any rational possibility but assuming an honestly stupid conspiracy on their part.

Any misrepresentation of your statement was unintentional - my sincere apologies. Misunderstandings do happen due to different semantic interpretations, especially when English is not one's native language.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the peer-review process is to have more eyes examining the contents of papers so fanatics don't push their pet theories and censor accurate science -- if plasma cosmology isn't supported by peer-review, there's a reason for that.

The purpose - Yes, in practise however, bias plays a major role, and especially 'confirmation bias' or 'non-confirmation' bias, as well as gender bias, which explains the extreme disproportion of publications by men compared to women.217.208.57.69 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And your comments about truth are nothing but a religious fundamentalism completely ignorant of science. Yes, facts are facts whether or not they're observed or agreed upon, but science relies on observation, just as Misplaced Pages operates on consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, religious fundamentalism does not apply to non-theists. it applies to 'faith' (a belief that something exists without proof) such as dark matter and dark energy - which require faith. Secondly physicists are not completely ignorant of science. Thirdly, Science has nothing to do with winning arguments, Science is the search for empirical truth through direct experiment, distinct from purely mathematical models. BBT is essentially a mathematical model built on R(4) manifold tensor space, which requires imaginary mathematical entities for consistency (specifically dark matter and dark energy). Plasma Cosmology (as it now stands) is built strictly upon known measurable entities, and known measurable symmetry interactions within flat E(3) Euclidean space with time as a vector. BBT is a creationist theory, where the plasma model is an infinite eternal unbounded cosmos. These are the essential differences. The dominant attitude of BBT supporters bears far more similarity to football hoolaginism than scientific objectivity. Objective scientists remain sceptical of all theories, especially the standard theory, and never cease putting the theory to the test. Treating a theory as an axiom is the antithesis of objectivity.217.208.57.69 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Making the same mistake as religious fundamentalists and calling it something else is still making the same mistake.Cite reliable sources in a neutral manner. We don't give a damn about your personal beliefs, no matter how much you keep calling them "the truth". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My personal belief's are not anyone's concern but my own, nor have they been discussed here. The only truth herein referred to is "absolute truth", which neither I nor anyone has any control over. I have no further interest in contributing to any article on Misplaced Pages, cited or otherwise. So let the dead cow rest.217.208.57.69 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This article will comply with Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If AndyTheGrump has anything to say about it - it will indeed!217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. AndyTheGrump is 110% right. Much of what you write here has absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology. Much of what you say here comes directly under personal theory, and is rightly rejected. This is clearly not censorship but necessary removal because plasma cosmology does not match the overwhelming observational evidence.

For example, plasma cosmology relies on the universe being infinitely old and infinite in size, rejects basic physics like redshifts, and assumes magnetic fields far greater than can be observed. Field strength, say for the Milky Way are measured less than microgauss, where for plasma cosmology to be correct needs thousands of gauss. Worst still, you cannot even properly account for fusion reactions in stars, nor for the chemical evolution of stars and galaxies. I've even seen truly crazy things like using H-R diagrams t explain 'alternative' versions of stellar evolution, including stars evolving from red giants to blue stars! Even the Cosmic Background radiation cannot be properly explained by plasma cosmology, without rejecting whole swathes of quite basic physics. Black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs are also based on firmly established physics, like Relativity and quantum mechanics, yet these are rejected too. There are so many pillars that have to be broken, that even those with rudimentary knowledge of science, knows plasma cosmology or its offshoots, has the probability of zero to be right.

Yet here is a little insignificant fringe group, thinks it is OK to pretend they are astrophysicists and cosmologists, when they are really merely tinkering electricians. (Why publish you stuff in mainstream astrophysical papers instead of hiding away in irrelevant IEEE ones? Most of the papers on plasma cosmology are now thirty to forty years old, whose death occurred in the 1980s.)

As for you saying; "Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis " is plainly nuts. Spallation as a source of stellar energies is not sufficient enough to account for the output. Making lithium and other light elements via collisions are feasible, but it is insufficient to generate the quantities observed in nature by factors around 10^18 to 10^20!

So from many years experience and grief, especially with this article, we know the aim is to just bamboozle readers just to convert them to this bunkum irrational kind of voodoo science. While gravity, magnetic fields and plasma exist, gravity is still the most pervasive force of all.

As for credibility, why do you cower behind some IP address and give yourself a name?

This is the actual 'truth' here, and it is certainly not even near censorship you allege.

Anyway in the end it is not going to matter, because you've begun edit warring again, when you were only sanctioned recently. Your fate is almost assured. Thanks for your input and reinforcing established views about pseudoscience. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The 5th Dimension

Alas, The only reasonable explanation for the post below which fits probability - is page skimming.

I would suggest starting at the top of "Censorship" - then carefully reading each line, word by word. It should gradually become clear that we are 'not' in fact discussing Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is now 20 years out of date and has long since been abandoned by plasma astrophysics, in favour of a quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics, which will not be discussed on Misplaced Pages. I am happy to say, my part in this discussion on the plasma cosmology - talk page is now concluded.

You may chit-chat amongst yourselves if you wish.217.208.57.69 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

" I am happy to say, my part in this discussion on the plasma cosmology - talk page is now concluded." Thank you for your contributions. It is certainly helpful that you've added some further information with arguments why plasma cosmology should be treated as pseudoscience. It is interesting you bring up plasma astrophysics, which is a legitimate line of study, but at least this is based on fact.

As for quantum magnetohydrodynamic, Haas (2005) http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0503021.pdf says in his conclusion, it applies; "For very dense plasmas and not to strong magnetic fields, the quantum corrections to magnetohydrodynamics can be relevant…" Note the word "relevant." It does not mean it is the dominant factor, it only means it is an addition small correction. Considering it was published only in Plasma Physics, and notably no astrophysical or cosmological source, says the some magical connection to astronomy and astrophysics is unlikely - and worst unproven. How it relates to plasma cosmology has not been stated by anyone in the literature. I.e. It is unverified, and likely trivial. (It links to two papers in the Introduction of this paper saying "dense astrophysical plasmas", but it appears in J. Phys. Condes. Matter and again Phys. Plasmas. (hardly credible astrophysical sources.) In nine years, this paper has two citations, both of which are totally unrelated to astrophysics or astrophysical phenomena. I.e. Neither refers to "dense astrophysical plasmas." Our only logical conclusion is you are desperately clutching with straws with unverified irrelevancies.

As for saying; "Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is now 20 years out of date and has long since been abandoned by plasma astrophysics, in favour of a quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics…" It is an out-and-out falsehood. (probably deliberately.) No one has connected the two ('Alfvén-Klein cosmology' and 'quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics') and it is clear that even 'magnetohydrodynamics' by itself is quite unrelated. Even this plasma cosmology article correctly points out that "Hannes Alfvén, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his other (unrelated) work in magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)." So wouldn't it be just as irrelevant towards "quantum model of magnetohydrodynamics"? Even if it were true, it would mostly be strictly limited to some black hole scenarios (which are still unproven.)

If you have any other legitimate points, I'd be happy to oblige, but it seems to me your grossly out of your league in this matter when it relates to plasma cosmology. Thanks again for your input. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

217.208.57.69 said; 'CMBR was not originally a component of BBT, it was claimed as such only after it's discovery in 1964. Sir Arthur Eddington had already calculated the ambient temperature of starlight 40 years earlier, in 1924, at 2.7 Kelvin, which was precisely correct. CMBR is as much evidence for BBT as it is for Plasma Cosmology, a fact which does not quite get through the heads of cheerleaders for BBT."

Again another falsehood. Truth, Eddington calculated a temperature of space 3.18K in 1926, and he attributed it to only stellar radiance. At best it was a guess, with most of the assumptions he based it on either disproved or being simply wrong. Actually, the first to do this was Charles Guillaume in 1879, who thought the space temperature from those same stars was about 5K. Simple logic. If you are going to quote facts then get it right and stop needless cherry picking. Plasma cosmology does not predict this at all, and it fails because it requires the Universe to be infinite in size and age. It is the measured redshifts that mostly confirm the Big Bang and not only the background radiation. (It is saying the universe is hot, actually, and was hotter in the past.) Yet, the redshift is not the only thing that confirmed that the universe is expanding, because it is also proportion to the size of galaxies. I.e The larger the redshift, the smaller proportional average size of the observed galaxy or even the maximum brightness of supernova shows a similar proportion. Silly specious arguments like this just make your own claims plainly silly. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Alfvén-Klein theorum of plasma cosmology, has long been abandoned by theoretical plasma astrophysicists. It has since been entirely replaced with a completely new TOE model "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics (QMHD)" in development at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Any arguments against Alfvén-Klein cosmology are therefore redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.57.69 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am eagerly waiting the reliable sources for this replacement. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Misplaced Pages will be permitted to publish any details on QMHD for the foreseeable future (if ever), even Swedish Wiki, due to Misplaced Pages's Creative Commons license. This is old news amongst colleagues at KTH (Here in Sweden), but thus far no official press release (Varken Svenska eller Engelska). I personally will not post any more sources in Misplaced Pages again.217.208.57.69 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"I personally will not post any more sources in Misplaced Pages again." Thanks for that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics" has very few hits in google, and none are related to plasma cosmology. I suspect that 217.208.57.69 is trying to troll us for laughs. I suspect that this "theories" are purposefully misguided, and carefully crafted to provoke lots of outraged replies. I suggest not feeding the troll. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked too. "Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics" or "quantum plasmas" looks like a real, if small, research field. None of the hits I found discussed cosmology. As for intent, it is also possible that the IP is a true believer who has fooled himself or herself. Cardamon (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of Dr. Haas' paper on Quantum Magnetohydrodynamics, it's quite interesting, however this has nothing to do with plasma cosmology, and no connection to the model of QMHD I was refereing to, in develeopment at KTH which is 'ongoing research'. The goal being a unified TOE. I am not even sure what the actual 'Title' of the model will ultimately be, and what I 'do' know is based on insider talk (rumour-gossip) at KTH. Only the researchers themselves know the details of this model, so it's impossible to even discuss at the moment, aside of being off the topic of Alfvén-Klein plasma cosmology, which most (if not all) plasma cosmologists have departed from in favour of revised models, including Dr. Eric Lerner.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally - Arianewiki1 and I have started a sub-discussion in my talk page, if anyone is interested.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. I have no intention to continue any discussion considering your past behaviours and misconduct. I.e. Personal name calling like calling me "Snivelling Bedwetter)" None of your statements are congruous with plasma cosmology being anything other than fringe science/pseudoscience (which 217.208.57.69 should read.) Even saying and quoting pro-plasma cosmologist E. Lerner (in your now previous deleted edit); "However, many scientists, including those from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that this bias be ended and alternative cosmologies be funded." shows your intent to distort the facts to suit some underlying agenda. Even by claiming a MSc degree and behaving as you have, would be easily considered as scientific misconduct anywhere. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. This discussion can be regarded as closed then.217.208.57.69 (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Heretic is a distinction far more honourable than Nobel Laureate.217.208.57.69 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is unquestionably controversial, however I do not see a rational argument for 'locking' the article, when blocking vandals should be enough. Also, it is completely inappropriate to refer to plasma cosmology as fringe science, given that the model was developed by acredited professional physicists, in accordance with accepted interactions of known physics. It is far from pseudoscience, which is typically metaphysics at best, and crank fantasy at worst.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here "Misplaced Pages contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." As such, it easily defies WP:NPOV on many levels, and proponents of plasma cosmology attempt to elevate importance regardless of the overwhelming evidence that refutes it. You may disagree, but those are the facts regardless of what is right or wrong. (The article is at best a compromise, mostly because of the seemingly endless war by proponents to use this article to promote their underlying agenda and not WP:LISTEN. WP:GF is desired here, but continuous WP:DE with plasma cosmology has meant a harder line adopted on editors.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious why Dr. Eric Lerner is banned from editing the plasma cosmology talk page, when Dr. Lerner is himself an expert in the field of plasma cosmology, and even cited in the article.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He was banned with good reason for not following Misplaced Pages policy, especially regarding issues towards pseudoscience. Expert or not, the rules apply equally to all. Agenda driven articles like "Misplaced Pages (rules in a knife fight…)", plainly does no one any favours. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Eric Lerner was censored for refuting biased criticism. It is not Dr. Lerner's loss, but the loss of those engaged in broad unbiased scientific enquiry. Misplaced Pages will lose any semblance of credibility if authoritarian censorship prevails. Pseudoscience and Fringe Science have replaced the term "Witchcraft" here in the late Dark Ages. Alternative models have become the new "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" and Peer Review the new Canon of the Papal Throne. An organised team of Guerrilla Skeptics who have produced a training video, have seized hundreds of articles on Misplaced Pages, and taken on the role of sycophancy of the mainstream, defenders of the faith.217.208.57.69 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Eric Lerner was censored for refuting biased criticism." This is false, as are many others stated. Evidence please. Not recognising WP:GF can also be sanctioned. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is contained in the edit history from 2006 to the present, for all the world to see. The censors can never erase this permanent record - containing every edit and revert ever made. Readers are encouraged to search diligently through the article history and come to their own conclusions, without having their science spoon-fed to them through the sieve of authoritarian censorship by self anointed little Mussolinis.217.208.57.69 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)