Acceptable cosmological discussions

[CBC]

Hello, I am a new arrival to this forum.

It was mentioned at another forum. So I came over registered and would love to see the prevailing Cosmological discussions.

The post that brought me here, was this one below:

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: Physics Forum Infraction: Electric Universe is Nonsense!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently registered as a member of "Physics Help and Maths Help - Physics Forum".

Not aware of the prevailing idiology of this site I posted the following comment:

Quote:
This video is about the Plasma Universe view on how the sun works - might prove helpful!

[crackpot link deleted]


However the comment was removed with this PM explanation:

You have received an infraction at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums.

Reason: Misinformation

Please do not post nonsense at the PF (Physics Forum).

Electric universe theory is nonsense.

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

All the best,
Physics Help and Maths Help - Physics Forum.


Although I assume members of Thunderbolts are advocates of Electric Universe Theory - is it actually offical that Electric Universe is Nonsense?

I would appreciate comments regarding the official status of "Electric Universe Theory".

]

I am interested in a list of acceptable cosmological models that can be discussed in this forum.

 

[marcus]

...

I am interested in a list of acceptable cosmological models that can be discussed in this forum.

What I say is completely unofficial since I am basically a rankandfile user, not a moderator/mentor. Here's my (unauthoritative) impression:

This forum is not for individuals to describe their own theories which are not conventional mainstream. There are other forums where oddball theories are welcome, and at PF there is an "Individual Research" section.

This cosmology forum in particular is almost entirely focused on mainstream PEER-REVIEWED research of the sort that is published in regular professional journals, like Astrophysical Journal (ApJ).

If you have a theory you want to post about, if you can show that it has been published in ApJ or another reputable peer-review journal like GRG or CQG or the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro Society, MNRAS, and if you can give a link, then there should be no problem.

I'm grateful we have this kind of filtering because it keeps the forum from getting cluttered with crackpot rubbish, where we'd waste most of our time criticising it.

You say you want a LIST. Well the standard cosmological model is LambdaCDM. that is massively supported by observation and gives a remarkable good fit to four or five different types of data, so professional cosmologists tend not to bother with any others.
But as I say if you have a peer-review published article showing that some alternative model has passed scrutiny, then it should be fair game. Just post the link to the published version!

 

[Wallace]

The vast majority of objections that people have to current theories in science stem from misconceptions or misunderstandings that people have about the theory. This idea of this site then (in my personal view, I have no authority here) is for people to discuss and learn about scientific ideas. It is very hard for someone to learn much if every second post details some alternative idea that sounds convincing to the uninitiated but is demonstrably wrong and simply very poor science.

This policy is sometimes (willfully?) misinterpreted as being about some kind of ideology, conspiracy etc etc as evidenced for example in the quoted text posted in the OP. This couldn't be further from the truth.

It is hard enough trying to properly understand the prevailing theories in science, so that is what this forum focuses on helping people to do. If someone really understands the current theory and stills finds a flaw that they believe could be corrected then they would be capable of publishing their idea in a journal, and then it becomes fair game on this forum.

 

[Chronos]

The short 'don't go there' list without a recently published paper:
electric universe/plasma cosmology
steady state universe
big bang is wrong
redshift is wrong
standard candles [e.g., SNIa/cepheids] are wrong
quasars are 'special'
black holes are impossible
infinite speed of anything
conspiracy theories

 

[Janus]

I think this question has been answered by the posts above. Basically, the cosmological discussions allowed are those that deal with accepted mainstream science or the above mentioned published peer-reviewed papers.