Talk:Anthony Peratt

Notability of IEEE Fellows

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#IEEE Fellows are notable? in which this article is specifically mentioned as the example. The discussion started "This guideline stated that, essentially, IEEE Fellows are automatically notable ... strongly recommend removing this wording". That editor (Junjunone) then went on to change the guidelines without consensus but was reverted [1]. Later Junjunone gave this article as the example he was thinking of: "I know of one example: Anthony Peratt (physicist). This article was re-created in spite of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Peratt. The only basis I can see for this seems to be based on the fact he is an IEEE fellow, so when I came here to read this guideline I was somewhat startled that this was such a bright line. Junjunone (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)"

It would appear from this that Junjunone is actively seeking to have this article deleted, knew that it had been deleted in 2007, and thought that it would not be deleted now because of the bright line clause about Peratt being a fellow of the IEEE, so is seeking to have the guidelines changed. As the originating author of this article I am happy for it be assessed on its own merits, however I object to targetted attacks where methods such as changing guidelines are used to isolate and then delete it. I would point out that this is not part of a campaign by Junjunone to improve academic articles. As far as I can tell, this article is the only one he is considering for deletion. Also Junjunone has attacked me in the past, and I have responded by accusing him of being a sockpuppet - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Topic ban User:Aarghdvaark - I simply do not believe his claim to be a new editor who only started on 4 Sep 2012.

I apologize for introducing this personal note, but I believe it is pertinent. I don't attack Junjunone's edits so he has no need to explain that there are issues between us. I believe the fact that he doesn't declare those issues when he attacks edits I have done is revealing. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As suspected he is a sock. He survived my raising the case that I thought he was a sock of ScienceApologist, but was quite quickly thereafter unmasked as a SA sock, see User:Previously ScienceApologist. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Book "Physics of the Plasma Universe"

The book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt has been discussed at length:

• A discussion was started on the book by Iantresman at Talk:Dusty plasma#Reference restoration.
• It was taken to an enforcement request on Iantresman by IRWolfie- here [2], with further discussion about the book.
• A clarification request was filed here [3], with further discussion about the book. Not relevant to the book, but for info the result of the motion is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

My thoughts on the book, and the explanation for why I changed my mind on what I originally wrote are here [4]. As far as I am aware there have been no quotes cited from the book which show that it is pushing plasma cosmology rather than plasma in astrophysics, nor any sources cited which state the book is about plasma cosmology. It has mostly been editors saying editor x said y, so therefore 2 + 2 = 5 (or 3, or 4, but anyway all WP:OR). I have no objection as to which of my edits [5] stands (both highlighted texts were written by me), but after my original text was challenged whichever version stands should be verifiable. That is why I tagged the entry. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This book is not a standard book on plasma astrophysics because it emphasizes plasma cosmology topics and leaves out topic that are usually covered by plasma astrophysics, as commented here, here and here. Iantresman, who has actually read the book, insisted in Talk:Plasma cosmology in relating this book and its author to plasma cosmology.

"Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[6] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[7], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in (...)"[8]

In this archived discussion. Iantresman cites an article on plasma cosmology, written by Peratt, where the words "plasma universe" are used several times. Iantresman is defending that plasma cosmology includes astrophysical topics, his proof is the presence of the words "plasma universe" in the title of an astrophysics article authored by Peratt [9].

"There is a second framework for cosmology—plasma cosmology. This approach, which assumes no origin in time for the universe and no hot, ultradense phase of universal evolution, uses the known laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior to explain the main features of the universe. It was pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammar, and others [2]–[4] and has been developed since then by a small group of researchers including the present author and A. L. Peratt [5]–[13]. In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified." Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang, by Eric Lerner. Reference [12] is Peratt's book.

"The IEEE, the largest professional organization in the world, recognizes plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology has its textbooks and peer-reviewed papers[39]."Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century. Wallace W. Thornhill. The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, Volume 4, pp 191-210. Reference [39] is Peratt's book.

To claim that this is book in not about plasma cosmology is to make a disservice to the reader. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Peratt's book was added to Plasma cosmology in August 2003 in the "books" section [10] and it's still there as of 15 October 2012, in the "see also" section [11]. Funny how nobody noticed in 9 years that it's not a plasma cosmology book. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Peratt cites his own book, while explaining how galaxies are formed in plasma cosmology: "While a complete description of the evolution of interacting galactic currents is given elsewhere (Peratt, 1992a, b) (...)" [12]. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Explicit comments on the book: "Physics of the Plasma Universe"

Well, I just got my hands on a copy of the book. I browsed until I found something I recognized. Page 66 is devoted in its entirety to defending Alfvén theory of Birkeland currents, aka plasma cosmology, and it refers to other chapters of the book where more evidence is given in defence of plasma cosmology:

"2.6.5 Currents in the galactic Medium. By extrapolating the size and strength of magnetospheric currents to galaxies, Alfvén (1977) suggests a number of confined curent regions that flow through interstellar clouds and assist in their formation. (...) 2.6.6 Currents in the Intergalactic Medium. One of the most compelling evidences of supercluster-sized Birkeland currents (...) Further evidence for such currents is examined in Chapters 3, 6 and 7." p. 66

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

More quotes, someone knowledgeable in the topic should be able to identify if it's advocating the plasma cosmology model of the universe (the plasma universe) above the mainstream interpretation.

"Figure 3.29, NGC 3646, is an example of a ver large diocotron instability, similar to that observed in aurores, in the spiral arms [of this spiral galaxy]" follow by simulations of the plasma in several galaxies. p. 128

"5.6.4 Double Layers as a Source of Cosmic Radiation (..) In section 5.6.4 we found that a double layer in a solar filament carrying the current [formula removed] can sustain a maximum drop of about [formula removed]. This means that such a layer is capable of accelerating particles to energies that correspond t the highest solar cosmic ray energies observed. As regards the high-energy neutron event detected by Chupp et al., a solar double layer seems to meet the very special requirements on the acceleration mechanism imposed by the observations." p. 195

"Example 5.3 Electrical properties of galactic pinches. Consider a double layer in a galactic filament conducting 10²⁰ A (Example 6.7). (...) If the voltage is actually distributed over a series of double layers extending for 10 kpc in the filament, the average electric field is 1 mV/m. (...) This energy is similar to that derived by Vlasov, Zhdanov, and Trubnikov (1989) for pinched plasma currents as a source of cosmic rays. The time constants for the release of energy Eq.(5.22) is t_b = 2 x 10⁹ years. The time rate of energy release Eq.(5.28)" is 3 x 10³⁷ W." p. 195

"Synchroton radiation was firt brought to the attention of astronomers by H. Alfvén and N. Herlofson (1950), a remarkable suggestion at a time when plasma and magenetic fields were thought to hav little, if anything, to do in a cosmos filled with "island" universes (galaxies).¹ The recognition that this mechanism of radiation is important in astronomical sources has been one of the most fruitful developments in asrophysics. For example, it has made possible the inference that high-energy particles exist in many types of astronomical objects, it has givn additional evidence for the existence of extensive magnetic fields, and it has indicated that enormous amounts of energy may indeed be converted, stored and released in cosmic plasma." p. 198

• This is the mainstream view now. Synchrotron radiation in astronomy is common, see e.g. the Crab nebula and the radio galaxy Centaurus A. The page Synchrotron radiation in astronomy incidentally confirms the prior claim of Alfvén and Herlofson, although this is complicated. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Example 6.3. Double radio galaxy simulation model galaxy. To simulate a radio galaxy, the results of Section 6.6.2 (titled "Synchroton Bursts from Simulated Z Pinches") are used and the simulation geometry is that shown in Figure 3.12 scaled to double radio galaxy dimensions (...). In analogy to Cygnus A, the two filaments are taken to have a width of 35 kpc [kiloparsecs?] with a separation of 80 kpc. Assuming that the total plasma mass M over a length L(~10²¹ m) of filament involved in Biot-Savart attraction is of the order of that observed in Galaxies, M [equals with three thingies) 10⁴¹ kg, while setting the velocity between galactic filaments to 1,000 km/s [Peratt and Green 1983] in (3.49), yields (...) Since we are scaling to the strong radio source Cygnus A (...)" Peratt and Green 1983 is a paper where Peratt simulated galaxies that worked according to plasma cosmology principles: "The galactic current is a result of an electromotive force (emf) induced by a rotating plasma in a magnetic field (Alfven, 1981). The energy of rotation thus represents the fundamental supply source. The current path is along the galactic axis of rotation, then fans out at distances greatly exceeding the extent of the denser plasma and returns back along the plane of rotation and also along the dipole field lines”"On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas"

"Example 6.7 Simulated quasar evolution. (...) At early time (5-10 Myr) in the interaction of two current-carrying filaments (scaled to the parameters of Example 6.3) only synchroton radiation from the two sources (precisely, the cross-sections of the interacting filaments where the double-layer E_z field occurs) (...) At about 20 Myr, the intensity reaches some 10³⁷ W while diffuse interfilament plasma has been collected ino the eliptical core and channel regions. The plasma in the channel can radiate via the synchroton mechanism (Example 6.6) (...) After ~50 Myr, the synchroton burst era comes to a close with a fall in the intensity of radiation from the filament sources. In spite of this, the current conducted by the filaments continues to increase from 2 x 10^t9 to 4 x 10²⁰ A (because of the constant E. This compresses the plasma in the core and reduces its dimension from about 50 kpc in extent to 10 kpc or less at much later time. The heated core plasma is eventually enveloped by the source plasmas which spiral inward to mimic the morphology of a Seyfert galaxy (Figure 3.27a) The two original hot spots which marked the most intense regions of axial current flow and which are the sources of synchroton radiation, now reside within the core of the galaxy." p. 250

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"6.7.5. X Ray and Gamma-Ray Sources. (...) Liang (1989) has pointed out the suggestive trend linking the so-called classical gamma ray bursters with two other impulsive phenomena, namely, the aurora from geomagnetic storms (Section 2.9.8) and impulsive solar X ray flares (Section 5.6.2). Like the aurora and solar flares, X ray and gamma ray sources are likely to have their radiative energies supplied by electrical currents. (Section 6.5)", p. 251

• The mainstream view is that gamma-ray bursts are caused by the gravitational collapse of a massive star into a black hole in the course of a supernova. Matter falling into the newly formed black hole powers the gamma ray burster. However, as the Wikipedia article says: "as of 2010 there was still no generally accepted model for how this process occurs". At the most basic level, some mechanism to generate e/m radiation is required, and I think Peratt's statement that electrical currents are the likely origin is a reasonable one (it may not turn out to be correct, but that applies to all the theories on how the process occurs). Also, this is the very last paragraph in the chapter, where authors can traditionally be more speculative - and it is clear from his choice of words that he is speculating here. N.B. Section 6.5 in Peratt's book is titled "Synchrotron Radiation from Z Pinches" which points out that the electrons in a beam can be confined by their self-magnetic fields and generate synchrotron emission. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also at gamma-ray burst it says: "The nature of the longer-wavelength afterglow emission ... is better understood ... Extremely energetic electrons within the shock wave are accelerated by strong local magnetic fields and radiate as synchrotron emission across most of the electromagnetic spectrum". So I think the mainstream view is that Peratt's suggestion is at least part of the accepted theory today? Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"7. Transport of Cosmic Radiation. (...) However, a complication arises when the propagation medium is no longer free space, but instead is plasma. The plasma may be dilute - such a s the interstellar or intergalactic medium (Chapter 1), or it may be dense - for example, pinched plasma filamnts that may even be the source of the radiation (Section 6.5). In both cases the properties fo the radiation are altered, in the dilute case over long propagation distances and in the dense case over short propagation distances.¹ (...) The absorption of radiation by plasma filaments, the large-scale random magnetic field approximation, and the generalization of radiation transport to anisotropic velocity distributions, finish the chapter." p. 253-254 Isn't this the argument that redshift is generated by plasma filaments? Plasma cosmologists reject the argument that redshift is caused by the expansion of the universe after the big bang, because they think that the universe is stable and has no end or start?

• There is no mention of redhift in pp. 253 - 254, nor indeed in the rest of chapter 7; so no, there is no mention of any plasma cosmology argument about the cause of redshift. Instead it talks about such things as "whistlers" in the Earth's magnetosphere. More than that, in p. v of the preface it says: "Some of the interesting topics ... such as discordant redshifts ... are not discussed here", so Peratt in the book has explicitly said "no" in answer to your question above, very prescient of him. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"7.5 Self absorption by Plasma Filaments. Cosmic plasma is filamentary, caused by the electrical currents it conducts. Since there currents are the source of synchroton radiation, it is of interest to determine the absorption caused by the filaments themselves." [p 275] "Example 7.6 Number of filaments required to produce a blackbody spectrum up to 100 GHz. Consider filaments of density n_e= 2 x 10^-3 cm³, magnetic field B₀= 2.5 x 10^-4 G, temperature T_e= 30 KeV, and width L= 10²¹ m. From Eq.(7.92), m^*=1.8 x 10⁸, hence M=3.4 x 10³¹ filaments (Figure 7.12)" [p. 277] This is the plasma cosmology theory that Cosmic microwave background radiation is generated by radiation passing through billions of galactic-sized plasma filaments, and not by the plasma in the big bang? (P.D.: These numbers are mentioned in a blog discussing "electric universe" theories.)

• At Electronvolt#Temperature, you get a conversion factor between eV and degrees K, so you can work out that 30 keV = 350 megakelvins = 3.5 × 10⁸ K. In intergalactic medium it says: "Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma that is organized in a cosmic filamentary structure ... It consists mostly of ionized hydrogen ... As gas falls into the intergalactic medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 10⁵ K to 10⁷ K ... When gas falls from the filamentary structures of the WHIM into the galaxy clusters at the intersections of the cosmic filaments, it can heat up even more, reaching temperatures of 10⁸ K and above in the so-called intracluster medium". Thus the existence of filaments of plasma in inter galactic space is mainstream, and Peratt is using a value in line with the mainstream estimate for the temperature of an intracluster medium. Also Peratt is not quoting 30 keV as a typical value for any particular plasma but is simply using it in a tutorial example. He shows in that example (example 7.6 on p. 277) that you should get a black body spectrum up to 100 GHz (i.e. top end of the radio spectrum) for the conditions he specifies (30 keV etc.), possibly applicable to an intracluster medium. But he actually makes no prediction in the book, neither about the intracluster medium nor about the cosmic microwave background radiation. So, no this is not the plasma cosmology theory about the CMBR. Interestingly, the blog you quote [13] says: "30 keV electrons ... is more than enough energy to ionize intergalactic neutral hydrogen (ionization potential = 13.6 eV). Recombination (electron and proton reforming the hydrogen atom) will emit photons at these energies, in the ultraviolet". And actually intracluster plasma radiates even beyond this, in the X-ray region, as also does the WHIM. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"8.1 "In-Situ" Observation of Cosmic Plasmas via Computer Simulation (...) As the properties of plasma immediately beyond the range of spacecraft are thought not to change, it must be expected that plasma sources of energy and the transport of that energy via field-aligned currents exist at even larger scales than that found in the solar system. How then are we to identify these mechanisms in the distant universe? (...) replication of observations over the entire electromagnetic spectrum should be expected, (...)" p. 285-286

• I don't see anything controversial here? It simply points out the difficulty of observing plasma: "The magnetospheres of the planets are invisible in the visual ... X-ray and gamma ray regions ... Only in the low frequency radio region is there a hint ..." It then argues that the way forward in regions which spacecraft will not reach is to use particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations. This serves as a good introduction to chapter 8. Particle-in-Cell Simulation of Cosmic Plasma. Again this is uncontroversial, much of modern cosmology is based on PIC - albeit of gravitational phenomena, e.g. dark matter. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Since computer models are limited to some 10⁶ particles whereas a laboratory plasma may have 10¹⁸ - 10²⁰ particles and a galaxy, 10⁶⁵ particles (...)" p. 297 These are the simulations of galaxy formation made by Peratt, based on plasma cosmology theory?

• No, this is a general discussion about simulating plasma, it is part of 8.6 Issues in Simulating Cosmic Phenomena. If a textbook on astrophysical plasma didn't include a discussion like this it would not be much use. There is no reference or link to any article by Peratt in this chapter, so the answer to your question is no. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Appendix C. Dusty and Grain Plasmas. (...) The transition of plasma into stars involves the formation of dusty plasma, the sedimentation of the dust into grains, the formation of stellesimals, and then the collapse into a stellar state (Alfvén and Arrhenius 1976, Alfvén and Carlqvist 1978)." p. 325 This is the plasma cosmology theory posited by Alfvén, that stars are formed via electromagnetic forces in plasma, instead of via gravitational collapse and Jeans instability. At the end of the appendix, he claims that a strong magnetic field may radically alter the "Jeans mass".

• I've now got a copy of the book too! I've looked at appendix C; it seems OK and includes both e/m and gravity - so what do you think is wrong with it? From what you've written above you seem to be saying that because the references are to Alfvén then it must be plasma cosmology stuff? But Alfvén is a Nobel prize winner who got his prize for work on plasma, so you can't simply dismiss his work like that. And the Alfvén and Arrhenius 1976 book is published by NASA [14], so that's an impeccable reference in my view, and its title is "Evolution of the Solar System", so where is the plasma cosmology? And do you have any issues with the other reference you quote - Alfvén and Carlqvist 1978 [15] apart from it having Alfvén's name on it? In fact from the abstract it says: "A star-formation process involving gravitational sedimentation of dust into a dusty 'stellesimal' is described". And your final complaint above is that Appendix C contains a sentence saying the Jeans mass may be radically altered - but I take that as evidence that Peratt is considering gravitational effects as well as e/m effects. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually this argument about referencing Alfvén should be turned on its head! Alfvén is the only person who has ever got a Nobel prize for work on plasma, so any university level text book on plasma that does not reference Alfvén must be rubbish! It would be like having a university level textbook on gravitation that didn't reference Einstein. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And of course, Peratt is modeling the formation of galaxies via only electromagnetic forces and plasma, without taking into account gravity. I think this is a basic tenet of plasma cosmology? Peratt also says that quasars are generated by collapsing magnetic forces and not by black holes, an idea theorized by Alvén and followed by Lerner (taken from Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible).

--Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• You say above that "of course, Peratt is modeling the formation of galaxies ... without taking into account gravity". From the discussion on Appendix C just above this section it is clear that Peratt is considering gravity - you've even written a sentence which implies that! In fact Peratt's book section 8.7 Gravitation, p. 299, discusses gravity. You also cite the book "Kicking the Sacred Cow" - is that book referenced in the book we are discussing now (I really don't think so!), or what is the connection between the books? Actually is this a complaint about Peratt's book that you are raising here, or a general complaint about Peratt? And for information you are incorrect in thinking that a basic tenet of plasma cosmology is to ignore gravity. The mainstream view is that e/m effects are important, I think the plasma cosmology view is simply that e/m effects are more important than the mainstream view - but it has always taken gravity into account. I've added this to the list of assumptions below. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The author of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" is James P. Hogan. He is said on his article's page to be: "a proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism", this is also what David Talbott supports. Hogan, like Talbott, is also a proponent of the electric universe [16] and I've explained below the relationship between the electric universe and plasma cosmology; you may be confusing the two? Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Plasma Universe

Hi Enric Naval, thanks for these comments. I think it is better if we don't simply accept other editors opinions, unless backed up, nor should we base our arguements on our interpretation of what other editors said? Instead I think a good place for me to begin would be to take a step back and state some of my assumptions, and ask you which you can agree with?

• Plasma cosmology is a fringe science. I think we can both agree on that? For info, I would classify it as today being considered non-mainstream science (which is one definition of fringe science), with a considerable historical body of work, some of which has been proved right and some wrong.
• Anthony Peratt is a distinguished scientist whose main area of expertise is in plasma, and he is also a major proponent or supporter of plasma cosmology (i.e. his expertise is not just in plasma cosmology).
• Most of the matter in the universe is plasma (> 99% by both mass or volume it says in the article). The term plasma universe was coined by Hannes Alfvén to highlight the importance of plasma in the universe. Whilst Alfvén was a plasma cosmologist (amongst other things), the term plasma universe is not always synonymous with plasma cosmology, it simply highlights that plasma is an important topic. It says at plasma cosmology: "The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology and sometimes plasma cosmology is seen as the evolution of the plasma universe.". Not very clear, but the use of the terms is not clear, so we cannot simply say because the title of the book says Plasma Universe it must be about plasma cosmology.

Sorry, wanted to avoid bringing up dark matter - clearly failed. What I meant to say is best expressed by this from Plasma (physics): "plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter". I actually looked at that page before I wrote the above and picked up: "Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume". So what I should have said was: "Most of the ordinary matter in the universe is plasma (> 99% by both mass or volume)". I've edited the main article at Plasma (physics) to reflect that now. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Plasma cosmology is not the electric universe theory, some of whose major proponents are David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill (co-authors of: "Thunderbolts of the Gods" and "The Electric Universe") and Don Scott (author of "The Electric Sky"). Indeed on Peratt's website [17] it explicitly states: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." The reason I mention this is that plasma cosmology does sometimes get confused with the electric universe theory [18], possibly because electric universe supporters claim that plasma cosmology backs up their arguments. The electric universe builds on some of the ideas of plasma cosmology, but goes much further than plasma cosmology (to places where Peratt doesn't want to go). And just because theory x is kooky and builds on theory y, does not prove that theory y is kooky too. So if people object to the electric universe theory, that should be irrelevant to their opinion about plasma cosmology.
• Some scientists who consider themselves to be plasma cosmology supporters (e.g. Hannes Alfvén) have proved to be correct in doing work on what they would consider to be plasma cosmology/plasma universe whilst the mainstream would consider it work on the plasma universe. Our current understanding of the aurora and much of the current understanding of astrophysical plasma is due to work by Alfvén, who fought long and hard to get the theories of Kristian Birkeland, who died in 1917, accepted. They were finally accepted in 1967, but only after a satellite took measurements in space (see the article on Birkeland). Before that Birkeland's (and Alfvén's) theories on the aurora had been dismissed as fringe science. Today Birkeland currents are mainstream, uncontroversial theories in themselves. Yes, proposing them as important components in galaxy formation would be fringe, but the actual mechanism of Birkeland currents is not fringe. So part of what some people (e.g. Alfvén, Peratt) would probably still consider plasma cosmology is today mainstream astrophysics.
• Added this assumption as found it needs to be made explicit (see discussion on book above): the mainstream view is that e/m effects are important, the plasma cosmology view is that e/m effects are more important than the mainstream view - but it has always taken gravity into account. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If we are to make the distinction: plasma cosmology is fringe but the mainstream astrophysical part of the plasma universe is, well, mainstream, then we need to be clear about what bits we consider belong where and provide verifiable information about which box we are placing things. Peratt faces no such burden, because to him there is just one box which covers all of plasma cosmology, the plasma universe, and mainstream astrophysical plasma.

So if we go back to your first quote of Iantresman above: "Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[19] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[20], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in (...)"[21], then I can fully agree with that quote, but I don't think that simply based on that quote you can justify your conclusion above that: "Iantresman ... insisted in Talk:Plasma cosmology in relating this book and its author to plasma cosmology". By relate I mean something more than being in the same paragraph - and guilt by association! I think from the title alone, all one is justified in assuming is that the book would include a lot about astrophysical plasma.

You've indicated some instances where the book is referenced by other books or articles (including one by Thornhill, see electric universe above), and concluded that the book must be about whatever those other books are about. I've argued above that while plasma cosmology is seen as part of the electric universe by electric universe proponents, Peratt for example rejects the electric universe theory. It is a bit unfair to blame an author for being referenced in a work whose theories he explicitly rejects! I've also argued above that parts of what proponents of plasma cosmology would consider plasma cosmology has become mainstream science. So I can see no reason per se why the book should not be referenced in the mainstream about mainstream topics? After all, that is why this all blew up, because the book was used as a reference in Dusty plasma. Why shouldn't it be used as a reference for plasma cosmology? I think all that is proved by it being referenced so often is that it is a well-known reference book for plasma?

I'll have a go later at answering some of your specific points, but I thought it important to clarify assumptions first. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hum, "plasma universe" seems to have two different meanings. One is "the view that 99.99% of the universe is plasma", which is fringe because the dominant view says that most of the universe is dark matter. And the other meaning is a synonym for plasma cosmology. See Talk:Plasma_cosmology#.22plasma_universe.22_definition_from_secondary_sources.

Sorry, I mistakenly left out the word "ordinary" in "ordinary matter" above. I've now corrected it. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

P.D.: never mind that Peratt himself says that "Plasma Universe" is a cosmological theory in his "World & I" articles, which I quoted in the other talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he does say that? I think he is writing about plasma cosmology as part of the plasma universe - he describes the plasma universe paradigm, but the article title is plasma cosmology. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Summarising the conclusion from Talk:Plasma cosmology#"plasma universe" definition from secondary sources:

• plasma universe = Alfvén-Klein cosmology
• plasma universe does not = Alfvén-Klein cosmology
• plasma universe = plasma cosmology
• plasma universe does not = plasma cosmology
• plasma universe = 99.99% of the ordinary matter in the universe (non-fringe view).

I think it is pretty clear the definition has to depend on the context. So, useful though it is to clarify our ideas of what plasma universe means, because it means different things it is pointless to try and agree on a definition which we then apply elsewhere. We have to look at whatever source we are considering to see which of the above definitions apply. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of a disambiguation page, see Talk:Plasma Universe#Disambiguation Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It ended up as its own page: Plasma universe Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

This letter and resulting website is important in that it describes the point of view of Peratt and other researchers related to the Plasma Universe and alternative cosmologies. The previous description labeled to this reference stated: «His name is listed on a dubious creationist web site contending the Big Bang theory.». This was a subjective sentence, which also is fundamentally wrong. I corrected it to state what is the case: «Peratt's name is listed among the scientists having signed An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (published in New Scientist in May 2004) that critiques the "growing number of hypothetical entities in the big bang theory". The letter also states that Plasma cosmology, the steady-state model and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos." (Siggy G (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Peratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629120239/http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/class_of_2009.html to http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/class_of_2009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)