Talk:Electric universe

Removing link to plasma cosmology

Plasma cosmology and the electric universe are clearly different things in the eyes of plasma cosmology researchers. The plasma universe web site, which bears the banner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Anthony Perrat, specifically disavows any link: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No such page exists at that link. http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html Jewels Vern (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

TheUniverse.html is the most recent archive link I can find, as of March 15 2013.

Should the fringe cosmology hypothesis talked about here on RationalWiki at least be mentioned (say "Various fringe cosmological hypotheses based on crazy ideas about gravity and electromagnetism; see this article on RationalWiki" ?

(And now for the "rational information concentrator" part of my summary line - which I know sounds itself like such a "fringe theory")

Remember, just because something is a fringe hypothesis (and therefore doesn't meet criteria for Wikipedia) doesn't mean that someone might not come to Wikipedia looking for a semi-coherent collection of links to information about it, or want to know WHY it is false.

Such a list (a "rational" list on might say) might actually include links to WHY the hypothesis is poppy-cock, information about might otherwise be quite difficult to find, given that:

1) Proponents of said theory aren't going to list criticisms, or if they do the criticisms are probably suspect as to how completeness.

2) The hypothesis is fringe, therefore very few web-pages are likely to be around (pro or con).

This is combined with the fact that few people are interested (relative to the fraction of world population searching Google). Thus is might be less likely that a Google search won't "bring the best bone to the top of the pile", as one quip described Google. Jimw338 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And yes, this did actually happen to me, looking for a list of refutations of specific points of Gilbert Ling's Association-Induction Hypothesis. (This is basically, "why cell sodium pumps don't (have to) exist". I'm still not sure if he denies the sodium pump COMPLETELY, or if he just postulates a mechanism for maintaining ion-gradients that doesn't entirely on such pumps. There is of course Ling's own web-site, which is in my opinion a one step above a gigantic disorganized MESS.

But I can't find any page that specifically lists the refutations to the various points that Ling makes, or the supposed experiment that Ling (IIRC) did with a Squid giant axon. I came to Wikipedia looking for such a coherent account - which it does sort of have, but it still doesn't list major refutation points, authors, etc.

I think Wikipedia should be (or try to be) educating people about why fringe theories are such - or at least pointing people to rational explanations of such (pun on RationalWiki intended). Perhaps one reason why fringe theories stay fringe (in the sense of "retaining believers") is simply because the information and evidence that could refute such theories simply can't be easily found. (I guess the other possibility is simply, "there are lots of idiots out there") Jimw338 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I Agree, Flat earth theory is here so why shouldnt Electric Universe theory be allowed to be here? It doesnt matter if it is untrue, it is a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odarcan (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)