Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8

A verifiable distinction between ambiplamsa and plasma cosmology?
Can anyone find a verifiable resource that makes a distinction between plasma cosmology and amibplasma. Below, Ian found a resource from NASA that described them as one-in-the-same. I have put up a merge suggestion to deal with this matter. --ScienceApologist 02:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the quest continues to simply eradicate Plasma Cosmology from Wikipedia forever. If you successfully pull this off, I must admit that would be an impressive feat.  What happens to the talk pages if PC is deleted and redirected to Alfven's original Ambiplasma model?  You can't seriously consider deletion of an article that covers an entire framework based on one source, can you?  Isn't there some sort of standard that protects against such rampant vandalism?  I am going have to make this attempt known among a broader audience. -Ionized 03:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you have no verifiable resource that makes such a distinction? I'll wait for Ian. He's pretty resourceful when it comes to searching for obscure references. --ScienceApologist 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah the sources exist or this article wouldn't. Your constant intrusion almost necessitates that I get my old database up and running again, it allowed me to search through the hundreds of pdfs and my .bib files that I have on this topic using perl/mysql/html.  Hopefully Ian can debunk your absurd claim. -Ionized 03:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please copy and paste in this section the sentences from the source you are referring to that "described them as one-in-the-same", or is that simply a matter of your opinion? -Ionized 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From Ian's source: "A third theory is known as the plasma universe model, in which parts of the universe expand while others contract. This would create an ongoing pulsation that occurs when clouds of matter and antimatter collide, generate energy, and, in turn, are repelled from one another." --ScienceApologist 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This clearly shows that the author of the source was simply confused, and did not properly understand the history and scope of Plasma Cosmology.  The author makes the mistake of summarily describing all of Plasma Universe as being similar to Alfven's original Ambiplasma model, without specifically stating the Ambiplasma model.  As shown at the bottom of this talk page, Plasma Cosmology is a much broader framework.  Ambiplasma was a stub originally taken from the Plasma Cosmology article, if anything, it should be merged back into this article, not the other way around.  p.s., maybe it wasn't specifically removed from this article, looks like it was started simply to define the word Ambiplasma, which was in this article, and was latter added to.  However this does not invalidate the claim that Plasma Cosmology should NOT be merged into Ambiplasma. -Ionized 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your opinion on the confusion of this particular elementary source, I would like to see a source that explicitly agreed with you. Ian is fond of point out that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, so if there is no source that verifiably distinguishes between the ambiplasma and plasma cosmology, I say that a merge may be entirely appropriate. --ScienceApologist 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But your intent is clear: to find any reason possible to reduce/remove/disrupt/destroy the Plasma Cosmology article. Notice that at the top of the Ambiplasma page history you state "(→Analysis of Alfvén's model - taking out pc cruft. This is an article about ambiplasma which is distinct from plasma cosmology.)", yet now you suddenly find excuse to move all of PC into this article?  There has got to be something in Wiki rules that disallows this type of obvious behavior.  And that is not saying that we CANT find a source to refute your obviously false claim, we simply shouldn't even have to, the argument is false at the outset.  p.s.  Besides, you will have to show that the source you are using for this argument indeed used the word "Ambiplasma", which I don't see in the sentence you are using for your argument.  While those of us that have studied it know that those properties are part of Alfven and Klein's original Ambiplasma model, it does not explicitly state this.  If your source does not make explicit the distinction, you can not argue that we must find a source that does. -Ionized 04:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the past, I definitely thought that plasma cosmology was distinct from ambiplasma. Now I'm beginning to think that I may have been wrong or at least hasty. I'm beginning to think rather that what is encyclopedic here is ambiplasma and Alfven. I'm also beginning to think that Lerner and Peratt are only notable as addendums to the speculation and proposals of Alfven. This article is fundamentally flawed because it relies too much on the obscure publications of Lerner and Peratt. The article as it stands is an NPOV problem because it presents their ideas as something worthy of encyclopedic coverage when similar levels of speculative modeling are routinely excised, summarized, or avoided in mainstream articles. This is a problem of focus, however, not necessarily of content. I think that moving this entire article over to ambiplasma, or at least focusing entirely on Alfven and removing the Lerner and Peratt POVs will only help properly characterize this subject with the appropriate level of marginalization required to conform to WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the entire sections below. -Ionized 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in knowing your or Ian's thoughts on the matter of what's important in plasma cosmology, as such machinations are quite irrelevant to the task of sourcing and creating an article that conforms to the state of knowledge in the world outside of Wikipedia. What we need to do is decide just what those people who study astronomy and astrophysics (the relevant fields to consider) think of this subject. I'm going to begin to collect references, but I believe that the ambiplasma hypothesis is the most notable part of all this plasma cosmology business. If this is the case, then this article should focus mostly on ambiplasma and leave the rest of the discussion to the obscurity it should have (per WP:NPOV). It may even be that the entire article should be moved over there. That's why I placed the merge notice on this article. --ScienceApologist 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What happens to the nearly 4 years worth of talk pages on Plasma Cosmology, if/when you successfully but erroneously merge this article with Ambiplasma? -Ionized 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing in Wikipedia is ever lost. It remains in the history. --ScienceApologist 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I would add this quick question to the bottom of the talk page but it doesn't merit interrupting the current discussion going on there. I see that the Electric Universe article was deleted, and I am attempting to find it's talk pages, with no luck.  Could someone please point me to the talk page for the deleted electric universe article?  It would be appreciated. -Ionized 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted talk page is where it always was, sort of, but only admins can see it. It may be relevant that Undeletion policy says "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article...(temporary undeletion)" Art LaPella 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In Eric Lerner's seminal piece of literature, he adopts the ambiplasma model. Peratt also adopts the ambiplasma model in his work. It looks like what may be the most important feature of plasma cosmology adherents is that they believe in Alfven's ambiplasma. --ScienceApologist 04:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner, among others, it is obvious that Lerner and Peratt did not entirely adapt the Klein/Alfven Ambiplasma model, they did document it however. They did adapt many of the foundational beliefs in Plasma Cosmology, not to be confused with the Klein/Alfven Ambiplasma model. -Ionized 05:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ambiplasma is a hypothetical plasma containing a mixture of both matter and antimatter
 * The Plasma Universe is a model of the formation of the constituent parts of the Universe.
 * To suggest their merging would to suggest that we merge "Cosmic microwave background radiation" with the "Big Bang model"
 * I can find no references that suggest that Ambiplasma is synonymous with the Plasma Univesrse. As this is ScienceApologist's interpretation, the onus is on him to provide a verifiable reliable source to support this idea. --Iantresman 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ian! I expected better of you. Where's your sources? I understand that you think that ambiplasma is only a feature, but if it's the most important feature, ipso facto it must be the focus of our attention. --ScienceApologist 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As plenty of other important features have been discussed, how do you propose that Ambiplasma is the most important feature, based on your interpretation of an obviously misinformed source? -Ionized 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the basis of it being the most well-known feature outside the obscurity of plasma cosmology circles. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You suggested that ambiplasma and plasma cosmology are synonymous. The onus is on YOU to provide a source; your statement, your source. I don't have to find a source to dismiss every opinion you have. See WP:V "Burden of evidence" --Iantresman 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait until the 2007 Special Issue of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science comes out. Or do you consider this to be part of an obscure plasma cosmology circle? How is it that something can be defined with no attention paid to the people who actually study it? The back and forth reasoning and multiple contradictory arguments you are making for this merger do not seem to coincide with the spirit of Wikipedia as stated above by ABlake and which I was under the impression we all agreed with, that is: "We are here not just to report what is in the literature, but to build a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive encyclopedia that gives (as near as we can muster) a clear and correct definition and explanation of the article in question." (ABlake, not trying to put your interpretation on the spot, it just seems to be a good basis from which to work.) -Ionized 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, IEEE special editions on plasma cosmology are part of the obscure plasma cosmology circle. The usual suspects are only able to publish in an engineering journal about their ideas related to astrophysics because Peratt happens to be a personal friend of the editor. Otherwise, there would be no outlet for these shenanigans. We do need to pay attention to the people that claim to "study" plasma cosmology, but because the field is obscure and marginalized, we have to worry about placing undue weight on obscure and marginal figures such as Peratt and Lerner. Part of a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive encyclopedia is one that relies on the status of ideas in the outside world to inform its coverage. That's what "notability" guidelines are all about. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for all flight-of-fancy proposals and the danger with writing about plasma cosmology is that because it is marginal it is easy for marginal, obscure, and unencyclopedic original research to find its way unvetted into the encyclopedia. That is our major concern right now. I see a lot of prose devoted to Lerner and Peratt that probably will have to be excised from the encyclopedia due to considerations of their marginal status and so as to not promote original research. Remember, just because something is peer reviewed does not mean that it belongs in the encyclopedia. We also have to make sure it is notable and it just isn't clear that many of Peratt's and Lerner's more obscure work rises to this quality. --ScienceApologist 14:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Marginal to mainstream, I could see that. But Peratt and Lerner are in no way 'marginal' within Plasma Cosmology, and this, after all, is an article about Plasma Cosmology. -Ionized 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmologists
I have some questions, mainly for Ian. Who are the recognized members of the current PC community? How many are there? How organized are they, and how do they refer to themselves as plasma cosmologists? Do Lerner and Peratt speak for them or for themselves? I'm trying to see whether there is an actual PC movement, or if it is just a few individuals tying into an older non-standard cosmology. Someone or a couple of individuals may refer to themselves as plasma cosmologists, but that doesn't necessarily constitute a movement. I'm just trying to figure out the scope, parts and pieces. Does the video have any copyright with it? If so, linking to a copyright-infringing site is problematic, regardless of all other considerations. ABlake 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These are good questions. I'd also be interested to have the "growing number" claim quantified.  Guy (Help!) 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tricky questions. There are no "card-carrying" members of the Plasma Cosmology community, and I don't know how you would identify them all. Do we count only those who have written peer reviewed papers, those who have pledged support, those who are sympathetic, or those who are agnostic on the subject.
 * Some have positively called themselves "plasma cosmologists" such as Anthony Peratt,, and Eric Lerner, others have written peer reviewed papers on the subject, but then they might not necessarily call themselves plasma cosmologists.
 * Plasma cosmology was mentioned in the The Open Letter to the Scientific Community, and rather than deride it, criticize it, or label it pseudoscience, thirty scientists signed it, and over 200 scientists and engineers have added their name since.
 * The recent results from WMAP confirm the predictions made by inflationary cosmology. Also, just because you can get a bunch of people to agree with you doesn't mean you're right.Dr. Morbius 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Over the years, a number of Specials Issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science have been devoted to relevant issues, such as the Special Issue on Plasma Cosmology (1990). The other Special Issues listed in the article seem to have been removed... obviously we don't want to give the impression that the subject is discussed seriously. The next Special Issue is due in Aug 2007.
 * Plasma Cosmology is a sub-set of the wider Plasma Universe, the latter also covering non-cosmological issues. But many just consider themselves "space plasma physicists", which is not to say that they necessarily adhere to everything that everyone else is researching. For example, Dr. Steven A. Curtis of NASA's Planetary Magnetospheres Laboratory features a Powerpoint presentation "Plasma in the Universe: Educational Outreach Tool" is a mix of mainstream plasma physics, and Plasma Cosmology (removed from the article in case we give people the impression that NASA actually condones this stuff)
 * The next Special Issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is co-authored by NASA's Dr Timothy Eastman, a Plasma Universe supporter . His name has also been removed from the article "claiming appeal to authority"
 * The Los Alamos National Laboratory Home Page links directly to Anthony Peratt's Web site "The Universe" on The Plasma Universe, and Peratt lists a number of exhibitions on the subject from Capitol Hill, National Science Foundation, Space Science Institute, and NASA. --Iantresman 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be tricky with my questions. I'm just trying to get the story straight. Let me summarize your answers. So, what are the main differences between PC and plasma universe? ABlake 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No official PC organization
 * 2) Only Lerner and Peratt have labeled themselves as plasma cosmologists
 * 3) PC is a sub-set of plasma universe
 * 4) Other professional researchers support plasma universe ideas, which are tied somewhat to Peratt


 * To focus on the label seems a bit misconstrued. Not sure what exactly would make an organization official, by the question I'm guessing there must be some sort of official Big Bang organization?  Plasma Cosmology is not simply defined by 'the set of people who label themselves Plasma Cosmologists.'  I can't personally answer your question about the differences between PC and plasma universe ABlake, will have to do some research myself on that one. -Ionized 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no official PC organization, just as there is no official Big Bang organization
 * I don't know whether Peratt generally label himself as such, but he responded positively when asked,[]. Alfvén has written on the subject, but I'm not aware of him calling himself a Plasma Cosmologist. Even though he won the Nobel Prize for physicist for his work on plasma, apparently he still called himself an engineer.
 * Yes, Plasma_cosmology is a subset of the Plasma Universe.
 * I had started an article on the difference between the Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmoloy, but ScienceApologist deleted it, and redirected here. You can read a non-public summary here. Or there's a peer reviewed summary online, or more detailed information in the articles on Peratt's Web site.
 * I have no idea of any connections between Peratt and other professional researchers, except that they share some views in common. Peratt works at Los Alamos, Lerner is an independent plasma researcher, Eastman works for Plasma International and NASA. Peratt was a student of Alfvén. Curtis works for NASA, but besides from his presentation, I have no idea what his views are. --Iantresman 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I'm still looking here for some evidence that the number is "growing" as per the infamous video, and I'm also looking for some kind of evidence that the number of believers is more than the cast of that video, because if it isn't, then we are all wasting our time. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As per SA's statement "Neither of us need "prove" anything (what is this, a court of law?) .... I submit that what was unreliable was the statement that more and more astronomers doubt the Big Bang. I can find no evidence to this effect, in fact, I find consistent evidence to the opposite as shown by the sources I mention."  So, please don't hold your breath because none of us (at least, not me) are going to waste time trying to prove this.  As for your 'number of believers' question, the evidence was presented just above, and indeed if your comment is taken strictly, since I was not a cast member in the video, we are not wasting our time here.-Ionized 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm still looking for some evidence that the number isn't "growing".
 * I think it is an impossible statement to verify one way or the other. Does it refer to American astronomers? Worldwide? Were the numbers growing one way in February, another way in March? There are too many variables. Perhaps it is an exaggeration like when ScienceApologist labelled the article "pseudoscience" (twice), without any verifiable source. --Iantresman 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you know, Ian, science doesn't work that way. Scientists do not say "a growing number of people believe X" and then  use as proof the fact that nobody can prove that the number is not growing, especially when said lack of proof appears to be based on the fact that hardly anybody believes it in the first place. So, given that this is one of the fundamental premises of the video, it is of some relevance. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology Definition Redux
Back to ABlake's question: What is the difference between Plasma Cosmology and Plasma Universe? (I believe that investigating this question will shed a lot more light on the entire debate, hence all the reformatting and focusing down. If this is a bit much and you feel that this is too far off topic, perhaps someone else can spawn this into a new section as well.  I would like to get everyones response on this matter, the definition of Cosmology, and how they would classify it themselves. -Ionized 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, I must admit I am having trouble seeing the difference between Plasma Cosmology and Plasma Universe, it appears to be a semantic difference at the outset. Looking a bit further in, it appears as if the distinction is being made that Cosmology itself only deals with the 'origins' of the universe, and I suppose that is simply a distinction that I do not personally agree with. If however that is indeed the standard interpretation of Cosmology as a whole, then my foot must be in my mouth because in the past and indeed right now in the present, I have viewed and currently view Cosmology as being the study of the universe as a whole, not specific to the study of its 'origins', but also not excluding the study of origins if indeed an origin exists within the specific Cosmological paradigm. At first I was thinking, and this may still be the case, that PC proponents substituted the word Cosmology with Universe simply to upset less people, as we all know how upsetting it can be to claim something is a Cosmology. So have I been using the wrong words this whole time? Is indeed Cosmology the study of universal origins only, excluding the present view of the structure of the universe? When we first touched on this subject last week I visited Cosmology and found amazingly that I agree with that definition (at least the part of it first presented in the overview,) it is the one I have been using all of my life. It is clear that we need to come to a better distinction then, the semantics are a bit out of tune here. -Ionized 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. After really thinking about it, looks like I'm classified more as a Metaphysical Cosmologist who focuses more on the dynamics of the universe as a whole, with rather little concern for Cosmogony or Eschatology. This would explain why I'm confused at other people's attempt at grouping it all together under Physical Cosmology and then assuming that is the entire definition of cosmology. -Ionized 00:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Plasma Universe folk would blur the definition with Plasma Cosmology, more than Big Bang proponents who see a Beginning. The Plasma Universe people are agnostic on whether there was a beginning, so there is no cosmology in that sense of the word.
 * However, it was ScienceApologist, many months ago, who insisted on removing some aspect of the Plasma Universe, because he felt it had nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology, which I think he argued was to do with the formation of large scale.
 * This demarcation is blurred in the Plasma Universe because the same processes apply across all scales.
 * This is also why there is a problem with people being labelled as "Plasma Cosmologists". As far as space plasma physicists are concerned who are sympathetic to the Plasma Universe, they just research standard plasma physics, which leads them (natually) to the Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology.
 * It is ONLY ScienceApologist who is trying to disassociate Plasma Cosmology from the Plasma Universe from astrophysical plasmas and space plasma, less we give the "mistaken" impression that there is any basis in science for these views.
 * This is why ScienceApologist removed Tim Eastman (NASA man), removed standard astrophysical information, claiming there is no connection, and also added pseudoscience tags (baseless). --Iantresman 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, though I would dismiss the PU term as unnecessary and change it to 'there is no strict Cosmogony in Plasma Cosmology.'
 * If SA is indeed a strict Physical Cosmologist under the paradigm of the object oriented framework which focuses on gravitation, there will be no reconciliation. Most of the objections made from that viewpoint are simply inapplicable to PC, this becomes more obvious once the true nature of paradigmatic cosmological framework is understood.
 * Agreed, but from now on any time I see the phrase Plasma Universe, I will in my head replace it with Plasma Cosmology, because I found out last night that they are essentially the same thing, minus some semantics. I will try to explain why I think this way tonight.
 * Agreed. The process oriented viewpoint and the reconciliation of the dualism in physics brings about the new paradigm, the label is not the essential bit of information, the approach and the contribution is.
 * I don't think it is only SA, there appear to be (and have been) some others attempting to dismantle this, but that is besides the point. The point is that opponents will, without modification and perhaps drastic revolution of their paradigmatic framework, continue to be unable to see any sort of validity in the Plasma Cosmology framework.  Rather than focus on improving their own Cosmology however, for some unknown reason, certain individuals attempt to dismantle, discredit, and generally dis anything and anyone who sees in a different manner.  Now, I am not claiming that Plasma Cosmologists have never done this, for it is obvious that we have attempted to show weakness in the Big Bang.  However, personally, since my attempt to remove the FA status of the BB article last year using entirely valid criticism, I couldn't care less about dismantling that article.  I do study how they think within their framework, as it helps to understand the differences and allows me to better understand Plasma Cosmology and Cosmology as a discipline.
 * SA's edits are generally unacceptable from the viewpoint of PC, minus the times he fixes syntax. But he and other BB proponents surely see them as entirely appropriate.  I doubt that this will change, even after a lesson in general Cosmological differences.  This is unfortunate for all of us here, and for the general public who come across these articles.  Ian, I agree with the sentiment towards the edits that SA makes, they are disruptive to the PC article, they are based on mistaken assumptions about PC, and they do nothing to contribute to the article, but instead discredit it. -Ionized 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While the info about our interpretation of SA's contributions will help the arbitration, I would like to switch focus back onto the general understanding of Cosmology. -Ionized 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ionized, there is a major problem with your statement above. As far as you're concerned, pretty much every person active in the field of cosmology, indeed, virtually every astronomer, plus just about every scientist on the planet, is disqualified from venturing an opinion on this because they are "BB proponents".  Big Bang doesn't need proponents, one does not propound it, one accepts it as orthodox opinion.  Fringe theories, like plasma cosmology, have proponents, and actually it's a much bigger problem having those proponents editing the article, because they hold a tiny minority view and Wikiepdia is not here to promote tiny minority views. That's a large part of why Ian is restricted from editing these subjects.  Guy (Help!) 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is primarily an article on Plasma Cosmology. The article on Physical Cosmology is the right place to give the mainstream view on Cosmology. That's not to say that we don't find a place to criticise Plasma Cosmology, but we source that information from peer reviewed sources, not from ScienceApologist. --Iantresman 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Plasma cosmologists are only seen as "proponents" from their point of view, in the same way that a Big Banger might be viewed as "dogmatic" from the other side of the fence.
 * "Describing" is not "Promoting". NPOV Undue weight tells us: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them"
 * By the way, I am not restricted from editing these subjects in any way, and no evidence has ever been presented to show that I have edited inappropriately. --Iantresman 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy, while I do see your point, I disagree that I would disqualify anyone other than PC proponents from giving opinion on the matter. Opinion is just fine, I understand that opinions will differ and that reconciliation is promoted through the expression of opinions.  What I was stating, partly, is that without an understanding of the basic differences in viewpoint and why those differences exist, opinion will be less useful.  A 'context' for that opinion is necessary, and when context is achieved, as we are trying to do here, reconciliation becomes more possible.  The context of PC advocates opinion lay within the framework of PC, the context of BB advocates opinion lay within the framework of BB.  It is reconciliation of context that must be achieved, once this is done opinion becomes more useful.  This is why I have attempted to focus the conversation back on to the basic understanding of Cosmology, separate from its sub-disciplines.  Doing this helps to give context to the opinions that have been presented, once the basic differences between the sub-disciplines is understood. -Ionized 22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. First, and most important, Ian is restricted, any disruption means an article ban.  I am encouraged, Ian, that you have chosen not to dirupt these articles, and I have to say that some of SA's edits appear to me to be taking advantage of your self-restraint, which is hardly the spirit of the thing, but overall the ArbCom ruling is more agin you than for you, because you are editing in support of fringe views.
 * Second, Ionized, you really need to stop talking about "BB adovcates" and "BB proponents". This was addressed in some depth during the arbitration case; big bang / expanding universe is the supermajority view in the scientific community.  It really does not help to label the mainstream view - which extends to most non-religious lay opinion as well - as being an attempt to push something.  The argument about expanding universe was essentially settled decades ago and there is now very little informed dissent from that view.  By referring to this as some kind of POV push, all you do is weaken whatever case you are trying to make. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:SPOV, but in matters of science, where a particular view dominates the literature it may be considered to be the neutral point of view, because science is such that over time debate tends to reveal, discuss and then either embrace or discount challenges to orthodoxy. It is not some kind of conspiracy theory, the dominant view is that expanding universe fits the scientific method more than plasma cosmology.  We can document plasma cosmology, but we cannot pretend it is anything other than discounted by the relevant professional community.  Guy (Help!) 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, I am not restricted any more than I was before the Arbitration case, and no evidence was presented demonstrating that I have ever edited inappropriately. But I agree with you that the Arbitration case was more against me that ScienceApologist.
 * Your suggestion that the majority scientific POV is considered to be the neutral POV is absolutely incorrect as far as Wikipedia is concerned. NPOV applies to HOW information is presented, it does NOT judge points of view. It is as crazy as suggesting that the majority political party POV is considered to be the neutral point of view. In the old days of totalitarian Communist Russia, did we really believe that their ideology was the neutral POV of the people? (I'm not suggesting any connection between Standard Cosmology and Communists, before anyone throws that at me).
 * Wikipedia tells us that we describe the majority view as the majority view, and we describe the minority as the minority view. It doesn't tell us that the majority view gets to exclusively describe the minority view as it seems fit. It's like asking totalitarian Communists to describe party politics. --Iantresman 12:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiki quote: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." --Iantresman 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's how NASA mentions the Plasma Universe in NPOV style. See the Web site for the NASA Genesis Mission (2001-2004), in particular, their Education page on Cosmogony, where you will find in the left menu a Module Guide "Quarks-Getting Down to Fundamentals", Teachers Guide; you will note that the Plasma Universe is mention, without resorting to judgment of any kind, and suggesting "You may wish to have your students research other models of time or of the universe. [..] A third theory is known as the plasma universe model.." --Iantresman 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I LOVE this resource. According to it, the plasma universe is exactly the same as the ambiplasma model. Should we redirect? --ScienceApologist 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian's statements above. Also "supermajority view", "mainstream view", "informed dissent from that view", "a particular view dominates", "dominant view", is clear acknowledgment of POV pushing within the orthodox community, and in no way does this become the NPOV by default. No SA, do not redirect. -Ionized 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "POV pushing" because it's not a point of view (it's a conclusion reached through scientific debate) and in any case it is so widely supported as to make pushing entirely redundant. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are demonstrably incorrect. Jimbo Wales makes this crystal clear in his statement describing both the majority and minority points of view. To suggest that the majority consensus is not a POV is an unscientific assumption founded on the mistaken belief that consensus is synonymous with truth (Wikipedia goes out of its way to note that verifiability is not truth); that was the point of view of Russian totalitarian Communists (hence their ironic-sounding newspaper, Pravda, or "Truth"). --Iantresman 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Guy, all conclusions reached through scientific debate are founded on viewpoints, it is the basis of paradigmatic framework, as describe above and below. If it is redundant to 'push' the orthodox view, why are so many people doing so in articles that describe the unorthodox? -Ionized 22:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're describing the Plasma Universe as well as Plasma Cosmology, then the size of the article will ultimately quadruple in size as we cover issues such as the formation of galaxies, stars, planetary rings, jets, quantized redshift, Titius-Bode law, origin of synchrotron radiation, cosmic rays, the cellular nature of space, electric currents in cosmic plasmas, and the evolution of the Solar System (hetegony).
 * Just from an organisational point of view, it might be worth considered giving an overview in an article on "Plasma Universe", and then having different articles on different aspects of the subject?
 * I've been meaning to start most of these articles over the year, but is next to impossible while the current article (and others) are being dismantled and misrepresented.
 * Perhaps Wikipedia is not capable of describing these minority scientific views. Ironic, considering that people boast that science is supposed to be objective. --Iantresman 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If it wasn't for people inflating the importance of fringe theories it would, of course, be much easier to cover such topics objectively. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never misrepresented any fringe theory, whereas editors such as ScienceApologist, have for example, labelled this article as pseudoscience,|On claimed it is "considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified". and for example, denies that experts, sources and textbooks have described the Wolf effect as a redshift or redshift mechanism, and won't allow it to be described as such, despite him being the only person on the planet to dispute it... and it's not even a fringe theory. --Iantresman 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

After some researching last night, I am under the impression that all of this is part of what we can call Plasma Cosmology, based on the very definition of Cosmology as being an overarching discipline meant to inform about the universe as a whole. Plasma Cosmology appears to be a Metaphysical Cosmology that attempts to incorporate and reconcile some aspects of process philosophy with the parts of Physical Cosmology that are not inherent to and dependent on the BB paradigm. Cosmogony of the universe itself (as opposed to solar systems, which are considered) takes a back seat in this framework, as the focus is switched to the current processes and manifestations of observables. It seems that one of the major complaints against the Plasma Cosmology article is that it does not include all of the subjects in Ian's list. However, there is great irony in that, because at one time the PC article indeed included many more things on that list than it does now, and those things where removed and continue to be removed systematically under the misguided assumption that they have nothing to do with PC. -Ionized 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And as the article on Cosmology says, it's "the study of the Universe in its totality"... that's pretty covers everything. --Iantresman 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The context of this article
The context of this article should be the ideas relevant to their notability within the astronomical community. That means that we need to be willing to look at ambiplasma and plasma cosmology as a subject that only can exist in light of the mainstream. I think this falls in-line pretty closely with the consensus reached in the pseudoscience arbitration. I welcome the thoughts of others on this matter. --ScienceApologist 04:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist wrote in the original merge proposal section above "I'm not interested in knowing your or Ian's thoughts on the matter..." -Ionized 04:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in knowing your thoughts on the merge, I'm not interested in knowing about your opinions on plasma cosmolgy as a subject/framework/piece of art. See the difference? --ScienceApologist 05:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are uninterested in my thoughts on Plasma Cosmology, under what context do you propose to be interested in my opinion on the merge? -Ionized 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources, Ionized. I'm interested in only how you would summarize the sources from the sources.


 * You misunderstand notability, which does not require notability within the astronomical community.
 * Ambiplasma, Plasma Cosmology and the Plasma Universe are all notable within the plasma physics community. There are peer reviewed papers on each of them.
 * I expect to be expanding the number of articles related to the Plasma Universe, on which "NPOV Undue weight" tells us that "that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them"


 * Fair warning: any attempt to expand the number of articles on these subjects will be opposed by me as POV-forks. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the same way that the articles on Redshift and Gravitational redshift cover similar ground? --Iantresman 14:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As if the obscure plasma cosmology subjects deserve equal treatment to the mainstream? Remember, content-forking is fine. When you content fork to avoid the prying eyes of other POVs as you are suggesting you will be doing "in the future", that's a POV-fork. Gravitational redshift and redshift articls are mainstream ideas that are content-forked. Your proposals are bald attempts at attempting to increase the visibility of a marginalized fringe theory. That kind of advocacy and agenda has no place in writing an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 14:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Your proposals are bald attempts at attempting to increase the visibility..." and your proposals are bald attempts to decrease its visibility. Your agenda should also be at issue here, this debate is not one-sided. -Ionized 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, sir. I do have an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world. The problem is that this is an encyclopedia and as such we have to be able to control content in relation to how content is verifiably controlled in the outside world. This means that marginal ideas need to be characterized as marginal and mainstream ideas need to be characterized as mainstream. Undue weight, notability, original research, all these principles go toward supporting an overall goal of keeping Wikipedia fair by avoiding emphasis on the fringe, obscure, and marginal. That's not to say we shouldn't have an article on the subject, but we need to write that article critically and with an eye to its status in the outside world. Ian had proposed in the past writing articles about marginal ideas with a sympathetic point of view. This is contrary to the Wikipedia idea, though there are other Wiki projects out there which will accomodate the sympathetic point of view. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No,"Fairness of tone", which is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition" --Iantresman 16:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're implying that I am suggesting an improper "content fork to avoid the prying eyes of other POV"? Can you provide me with a diff to this statement of mine? --Iantresman 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. When you talk about spinning-off articles about the various aspects of the plasma universe, that is POV-forking. Wikipedia should not be in the business of sponsoring articles such as quasar (plasma cosmology), structure formation (plasma cosmology), or nucelosynthesis (plasma cosmology). --ScienceApologist 14:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like all the following are spin-off POV forks on "Cosmology"?
 * Cosmology
 * Cosmology (Physical)
 * Cosmology (metaphysics)
 * Cosmology (Religous)
 * Cosmology (Plasma)
 * Cosmology (Non-standard)
 * Cosmology (Quasi-steady state)
 * Cosmology (Sufi)
 * Cosmology (Creationist)
 * Cosmology (Quantum)
 * Cosmology (Islamic)
 * Cosmology (Popperian)
 * Biblical cosmology, Hindu cosmology, Norse cosmology, Buddhist cosmology, Loop quantum cosmology, Brane cosmology, Jain cosmology, String cosmology, Observational_cosmology, Esoteric cosmology. --Iantresman 15:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Other way round, Ian. Plasma cosmology is the perspective as opposed to cosmology which is the subject. --ScienceApologist 15:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Quasi-steady state, Non-standard, and String, are also perspectives (minority/significant views)? --Iantresman 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So we can present all these views on Cosmology, but we can't present these views on Quasars, for example?


 * And you are arguing to remove an entire article on this perspective. Surely once this is done you will go through the list of other Cosmologies above and proceed to remove them based on the exact same reasoning put forth for removal of this, where that reasoning applies?  A more proper philosophical description of Plasma Cosmology was given in the section just above, the framework exists, the perspective is noteworthy, it is verifiable.  Perhaps you could find other cosmologies to pick on from the above list that Ian gave, ones that are less verifiable. -Ionized 16:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Plasma cosmology is pretty much as fringe as it gets from that list. --ScienceApologist 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'merge' tag from the article, consensus was not reached to perform the merge. SA reverted it back, claiming the merge attempt discussion is still ongoing. I see no ongoing discussion regarding a merger, the tag should be removed. -Ionized 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus to perform the merge needs to be developed before the merge occurs. Adding a tag does not indicate that we are definitely going to merge the articles. --ScienceApologist 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no more talk on a 'merge' for a week now, the only one that even voiced an opinion in favor of it was you. How long does the voting process take?  Where are we counting the votes towards consensus?  -Ionized 04:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are prepared to say that a merge is required, then I'm inclined to do this. I have offered reasons a merger should be undertaken and no one has responded to them. -ScienceApologist 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in no way saying that a merge is required, I think the notion is absurd. We have responded to your criticisms, you simply choose not to listen. -Ionized 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica as a source?
Using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source, in my mind, is very poor form. First of all, citing an encyclopedia is generally frowned upon in most writing. Second of all, why should Brittanica be considered a reliable source for what plasma cosmology is? What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 13:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably you'll agree that Britannica is a better source than the Creationst and Geocentrist Web sites, that you used in the article on Redshift quantization, despite them failing WP:RS as a "Self-published sources", and every criteria regarding sources for "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine", and as highlighted in the recent Arbitration case on "Appropriate sources"? --Iantresman 15:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please confine your argument to this article rather than changing the subject. Still waiting for a justification for using Brittanica. --ScienceApologist 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out the Ad Hom that SA just made against Ian on the edit summary comments, visible in the Talk page history for this section: "no justification, only posturing by the Ianpeacock.)" What is the meaning of this? -Ionized 16:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that ScienceApologist has been making recent changes to the WP:FRINGE standards, and these changes reinforce his arguments for removal of verifiable content in the Plasma Cosmology article. So the method goes as follows: if we don't like something, we change Wiki standards, hopefully without notice by others, so that we can use our newly changed standards to argue against inclusion of material that would have previously passed. Brilliant method. -Ionized 16:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just your average alternative
I have a problem with simply calling pc an "alternative" as it is decidedly outside the mainstream and fringe in terms of its reception in astrophysics. As such, I've indicated that in the first sentence, but I'm not particularly happy with the wording. Thoughts? --ScienceApologist 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't right away see a problem with your change. I would like to see the wording about gravity changed slightly, though it is close to being fine (in my opinion.)  While PC brings back into consideration Emag on a large scale, it also doesn't strictly discount gravity.  The current wording doesn't really imply that gravity is discounted, but it also doesn't imply that gravity is still considered (but is negligible in certain analysis.) -Ionized 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)  p.s., I would like to state that I don't really agree with your interpretation of it being 'decidedly' fringe and outside of astrophysics.  However there is no arguing with you, so I simply agree with your change in this case because it does nothing to destructively restructure the article as a whole, ... yet.  However, your addition of "advocated most famously by Hannes Alfvén" might eventually come in to play in one of your spontaneous arguments to merge, or remove, or delete other important contributors.  I see a bit of foreshadowing here, as if you might be setting up for your next round of attack.  But since that is unprovable, I can't argue it is true. -Ionized 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The current wording doesn't really imply that gravity is discounted, but it also doesn't imply that gravity is still considered (but is negligible in certain analysis.) --> Really? I thought that the wording did indicate this. How would you change it? --ScienceApologist 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose it does come close. It is missing something, ah I think I see an easy fix:  "... who thought that electromagnetic forces associated with astrophysical plasmas influence the universe in addition to, or even more than gravity. This claim contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that gravity is the dominant force on large scales due to the tremendous abundance of gravitational masses."  I changed "a similar fashion" to "addition to", and that seems more appropriate. -Ionized 19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)  p.s., I went ahead and made the slight change to the article -Ionized 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Electromagnetic force

 * "Based on the fact that electromagnetic forces may influence charged particles in astrophysical plasma up to 1039 times more than the gravitational force,.. "

ScienceApologist, you removed this statement saying that it is not a fact. Would you explain. --Iantresman 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand how the factor of 1039 justifies the neglect of gravity in the theory of the atom. Where does this factor appear in astrophysics? At the least you need a passle of assumptions on charge densities and currents. And the wording "may influence ... up to 1039 times more" is much too vague and practically tautological. --Art Carlson 11:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Article Note #8 gives a more quantitative assessment. --Iantresman 12:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, not a fact and not justified by that note either. Art's right: it only applies to atoms not to macroscopic plasmas. --ScienceApologist 13:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just remind me how gravity forms the heliospheric current sheet the largest object in the Solar System? --Iantresman 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Is this object larger than the Oort cloud?" Thanks for pointing out another error. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That "postulated spherical cloud of comets"? (Funny how there are so many postulated gravitational objects, black holes (postulated), neutron stars (postulated), Oort cloud (postulated), Accretion disc (postulated))
 * And of course, we'll take it as consensus that the Oort Cloud is within the Solar System. --Iantresman 14:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If this statement is supposed to refer to the calculation in Note 8, then it seems you have misplaced a paltry 32 orders of magnitude. --Art Carlson 14:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad phrasing. But it is the EM force, that is 1039/ times that of gravity, that results in a 10 7 greater influence on charged particles by a magnetic field, than gravity, in this particular examples. Other examples, will have different results. For example, a charged particle in the electric field of a Solar double layer. --Iantresman 14:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "But it is the EM force, that is 1039 times that of gravity, that..." This statement is pretty meaningless so it needs much refinement before it is useful to a reader. The gravitational force due to 20000mols of neutrons is much larger than the electromagnetic force due to those neutrons. Since gravitational force is added to by the presence of other matter, and never opposed, while electromagnetic forces can be opposed depending on the configuration of matter, it is very important to find references to the key configurations that support or contradict observations and discuss those configurations. Though I agree with your intention and including the best case realistic configuration of Plasma Cosmology is important to show how the approach is at least worthy of further reading is important. TristanDC 11:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What a silly thing to say: The "EM force is 1039 times that of gravity" is only good for individual atoms. Not for macroscopic objects. --ScienceApologist 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atoms or charged particles? Singular particles, or collections of particles?
 * Ignoring the fact that gravity doesn't work on galaxy rotation curves without the need for fairy dust dark matter, tell me, what force forms the heliospheric current sheet? --Iantresman 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would copy some more out of Alfven's book 'Cosmic Plasma', here are some of the things he has to say about Current Sheets in general (pp39, section II.9.5 Boundary Current Sheets:
 * "In striking contrast to the current layer we have discussed above, there is another type of current layer which forms boundaries between two regions of plasma possessing drastically different parameters. The basic difference is that the cables we have discussed above carry currents so small that their magnetic field is negligible compared to the exterior field, whereas in the boundary current sheets, the current is large enough to change the surrounding field considerably.
 * In the magnetosphere, there are three such layers (Heikkila, 1975;Heikkila and Block, 1977) - a) The magnetopause, b) The neutral sheet in the tail, c) Front layer ....... he goes on to discuss more details of the three types, skipping ahead-
 * The discovery of these layers appears to many as the most sensational of all space research discoveries (although Dungey (1961,1964) predicted them to some extent.) It is especially surprising that these current layers exhibit such a remarkable permanence, if not stability.  The existence of such layers changes our views of the structure of space plasmas (Falthammer et all., 1978).
 * As such layers are of course likely to exist also in regions where spacecraft have not yet made insitu measurements, we must drastically revise our views of the structure of space. The existence of such boundary layers leads to the conclusion that space everywhere (interstellar space and intergalactic space) has a cellular structure.  We shall discuss the consequences in the next section." -Hannes Alfven, Cosmic Plasma  -Ionized 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology Model
ScienceApologist, you removed the word "model" from the description. We've been through this before. I have verifiable sources describing Plasma Cosmology as a model. You are not verifiable, and you are not the arbiter of whether minority views reach model or theory status. So either find a source, or leave your opinions out of the article. --Iantresman 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Alfvén's Cosmological theory.. "
 * "The newer plasma cosmology model is an improvement in that.."
 * "More recently a theory called “Plasma Cosmology”..."


 * Since it is debatable as to whether this concept/idea/proposal/speculation rises to the status of a "model", it's best not to describe it as such, or at lest attribute if we are going to use such a description. --ScienceApologist 13:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not debatable. "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." If you have verifiable source that suggests that it's debatable, then I'd be happy to include it in the article. But just because YOU think it is debatable would fall under "no original research" --Iantresman 13:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Debates" that they are referencing in WP:NPOV are not editorial debates which is what I was referring to. What you need to read about are disputes. --ScienceApologist 13:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Protest
ScienceApologist, once again I protest your edits which I consider to be the height of bad etiquette: I am not going to edit the article again, especially while your "agenda [is] to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology", in stark contrast to Wikipedia policy which is supposed to allow us as much space as possible to describe "minority views". --Iantresman 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have made no attempt to discuss the edits with other editors beforehand.
 * Your continual unilateral approach is not constructive
 * Your suggestion that "It's arguable whether some of [plasma cosmologist's] "developers" were really "plasma physicists", again I consider an ad hominem. An editor's job is to correct information, not remove it.
 * Your removal of the list of plasma pioneers claiming that it's a "laundry list", is both verifiable and an insult to the researchers concerned.
 * Ian, a couple of questions about your protest.
 * What did Dirac, Jansky, Appleton or Reber ever do that was specifically plasma cosmology, rather than a contribution to physics or astronomy as a whole?
 * How is it even possible to insult a researcher by removing his or her name from a list of pioneers of plasma cosmology? Cardamon 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one said that people like Dirac were "specifically" involved with plasma cosmology, nor that they didn't contribute to physics as a whole. For example, Kristian Birkeland died in 1917, and would have known nothing about plasma cosmology, nor the work of Hannes Alfvén; the word "plasma" wouldn't be coined for another 11 years. That's not to say that Plasma Cosmologists do not consider Birkeland a pioneer of what would be come plasma cosmology and the Plasma Universe.
 * What is important, is the those involved with the Plasma Universe consider certain researchers to be pioneers of their field. That is verifiable.(PDF). The contributions of these people is described in Peratt's 1986 paper.(PDF) --Iantresman 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The current article history which ScienceApologists attributes to Klein is a baseless fantasy.


 * Here is more verifiable peer reviewed history of the plasma universe: "Much of the modern-day foundations of the plasma universe can he traced to the International Astronomical Union Symposium number 6 held in August 1956, in Stockholm, Sweden, and attended by "Olympians" such as Alfvén. Artsimovich, the Babcocks, Baños, Bennett, Biermann, Hanhury, Brown, Buneman, Burbidge, Chandrasekhar, Cowling, Dungey, Ferraro, Fowler, Gold, Hoyle, Lehnert, Parker, Pease, Piddington, Pikelner, Schafranow, Shklovsky, Schüter, Spitzer, Swann, Sweet, van de Hulst. and many other notables", W.H. Bostick, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume: 17, Issue: 2, Apr 1989,
 * As far as I am concerned, the existing article history written by ScientistApologist attributing the history to Oscar Klein, is a baseless fantasy. --Iantresman 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning that you can verify that plasma cosmologists have claimed some highly accomplished scientists as intellectual ancestors, or that some "notables" have attended a conference that a plasma cosmologist has claimed to have laid much of the foundations of his field. But, once again, did all these scientists contribute specifically to plasma cosmology in a significant way? If not, listing their names seems like a mere rhetorical device.  Does listing those names increase the reader's understanding of the claims of plasma cosmology, of the evidence for and against those claims, of the consequences those claims would have if the were true, or of the history of the field?  So, I agree with ScienceApologist's deletion of those names. Cardamon 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist needs to be banned from editing this article. It is the only way we will be able to constructively work on the article. -Ionized 22:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly diasagree. Cardamon 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph
I removed:


 * Writing in 2003 in the 6th Special Issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, guest editor and plasma cosmology enthusiast Anthony Peratt wrote that there have been many who have helped pioneer plasma cosmology, including Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén.

Which is a paragraph that is quite problematic because it doesn't add any verifiable information to the history section. I will point out that I removed the laundry list of Peratt's from the article earlier, but left in the arguably two most easily connected names in plasma cosmology. The explanatory relevance of this paragraph, however, is next to nothing. There is no reason, for example, to choose a list of names as important. A history section should talk about the history of the subject, not about who one scientist thinks was important. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget the platitudes. You've removed the text (again) without prior discussion. Yes, the text is verifiable, but I'm not going to waste my time, since you'll find some other reason to remove it, culminating in "I'm not convinced". You can write your own history and view of plasma cosmology for all I care. It bears little resemblance to what is verifiable.
 * As you've said yourself:
 * "I'm not interested in knowing your or Ian's thoughts on the matter of what's important in plasma cosmology"
 * "I'm not interested in knowing about your opinions on plasma cosmolgy as a subject/framework/piece of art."
 * "I do have an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world."
 * Clearly editing this article is not cooperative, more a case of you'll edit as you see fit, and everyone else has to convince you otherwise. --Iantresman 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The onus is (and always has been) on those seeking to include content, to achieve consensus. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is one part of Wiki guidelines. As the page use to say, "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)."
 * An editor who claims
 * "I'm not interested in knowing your or Ian's thoughts on the matter of what's important in plasma cosmology",
 * "I'm not interested in knowing about your opinions on plasma cosmolgy as a subject/framework/piece of art."
 * "I do have an agenda to decrease the visibility of plasma cosmology in relation to its marginalization in the outside world.",
 * ... does not appear to be interested in policy, let alone consensus. --Iantresman 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to ambiplasma proposed officially
Okay, this has been up long enough with no input.

I submit we merge this article to ambiplasma, keeping the Alfven-Klein history, the text on ambiplasma, and perhaps smidgeons of the rest of the text available (to the extent that there were discussions of plasma cosmology in the 1990s and there are still today modern proponents like Lerner and Peratt). The reason for this is that I can find absolutely no verifiable or reliable evidence that plasma cosmology is ever viewed outside of its own community as anything but ambiplasma suggestions. This means that this entire article is mostly original research. All of the "framework" idealizations are speculative amalgmations by one of two people: Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt -- no reliable secondary sources have summarized this because we only have Lerner's book and Peratt's IEEE paper. Seeing as how the field is so "new" and unclearly based on Alfven's ideas, it is best to simply redirect this article over to ambiplasma. We can include some discussion of scalability over there perhaps, but the stuff from Peratt and Lerner has to go as it has received no critical peer review. The closest that Lerner could muster was response on a webpage. I will wait for somebody else to indicate that "plasma cosmology" really is a subject in its own right, notable enough to be separated from ambiplasma.

--ScienceApologist 12:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We've already discussed this above in the section "A verifiable distinction between ambiplamsa and plasma cosmology?". And here.
 * There was no consensus to do so. --Iantresman 14:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see absolutely no argument that remains unchallenged not to redirect. --ScienceApologist 14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that ambiplasma should be redirected to plasma cosmology since ambiplasma is a minor subset of plasma cosmology, and already has a section in PC. I think ambiplasma is an unnecessary fork by itself, but it is important enough to have a section in PC since it was proposed by someone notable, who stood independent of standard cosmology. ABlake 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A worthy opinion, but it seems to me that most of the discussion devoted to Peratt and Lerner's ideas are cluttering up this page too much. What is important is that Alfven had cosmological ideas related to ambiplasma. That is the most-oft referenced part of plasma cosmology. I could see a merger with a drastic cut of most of the discussions of the individual ideas of Lerner and Peratt. However, I'm not convinced that plasma cosmology is the correct term to use for this since Alfven didn't really use it. Ambiplasma, however, he did use and that's what the literature indicates is more notable (from a citations standpoint). --ScienceApologist 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over the page, it does seem that Peratt and Lerner's ideas are much more expanded than the ideas of the pioneers, and that seems to give undue attention/importance. I think a summary of Peratt and Lerner's ideas are appropriate, with links to the individuals' pages where those ideas can be explained in more depth (without propoganda). Ambiplasma was one of the original ideas that separated PC from other cosmologies, but it was just one in a series of ideas that makes PC distinct. And Peratt and Lerner should still be referenced since they are a continuation of the line of thought. PC has a better track record than EU as far as notability goes, even if EU is a later branch that has not developed enough for inclusion. I guess what I am saying is that PC is the appropriate place for this information rather than ambiplasma. To me, merging PC into ambiplasma would be like merging all of Christianity into an article on the new testament. The term Christianity was never used in the Bible, and it has certainly outgrown its original confines, and limiting it to a lower-order article on an original tenant doesn't make sense to me. The current advocates of PC have received popular media coverage and have had articles on PC-related topics in IEEE, etc. That demonstrates notability to me the ability of PC to have its own article, unlike EU at this point. However, I agree that there must be balance. An article on Christianity should not be overwhelmed by current debates and discussion. Neither should Peratt and Lerner's contributions to PC overwhelm those of the pioneers. ABlake 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting closer to consensus here with this comment, ABlake. The undue weight given to Peratt and Lerner on this page is palpable. My reasoning for focusing on ambiplasma is that this is a feature of plasma cosmology most often cited by those who make plasma cosmology notable which are outside sources who reference it critically rather than with a laudatory intent. The unique ambiplasma hypothesis ensured that the ideas of plasma cosmology would be separated from normal plasma astrophysics. None of the other ideas really do that. Electromagnetic forces could play a role on large scales, they could not: this doesn't distinguish plasma cosmology. There may or may not be large scale "Birkeland currents": their presence does not really affect the present mainstream cosmological models. There may or may not be plasma processes influencing structure formation. And so on. The issue comese when plasma cosmology takes issue with the dynamical universe models of the steady state and big bang theories. Alfven believed that plasma accounted for Hubble's Law through ambiplasma moving through a quasi-Milne like or at least static universe-like expanse. This is indeed a totally separate cosmology. When Lerner argues that he can get the abundance of light elements right without invoking BBN, he is necessarily harkening back to this argument. When he argues that the CMB is dues to integrated starlight, he is also harkening back to this position. When he argues that there are intrinsic redshifts he may be going further in abandoning ambiplasma in favor of some sort of new static non-expanding universe, but that's Lerner's individual opinion and is not something this encyclopedia can comment on. This is why ambiplasma is important. It is ambiplasma and ambiplasma alone that separates plasma cosmology from standard cosmology. That's why it deserves to be the focus of this article at the very least. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SA wrote "It is ambiplasma and ambiplasma alone that separates plasma cosmology from standard cosmology." Not true, and that you would even think this shows that you have chosen to ignore nearly everything we have sourced and discussed over the past 4 years on these talk pages and in the article.  Also, how you can interpret ABlake's statement as 'getting closer to consensus' is beyond me, he stated "I am saying is that PC is the appropriate place for this information rather than ambiplasma."  Ambiplasma was a model formed within the discipline of plasma cosmology, it is not the distinguishing factor that "separates plasma cosmology from standard cosmology."  Plasma cosmology is a disciplinary framework as discussed in multiple sections above, it does not consist of just the ambiplasma model, and indeed if you remove the ambiplasma model, the rest of plasma cosmology does not turn into standard cosmology, as your claim would suggest. -Ionized 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please illustrate how my statement above was wrong. Plasma cosmology is either Milne-ambiplasma or static universe-intrinsic redshift. That's the only options I've seen referenced. --ScienceApologist 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside critique of plasma cosmology and neologism suggestions
(note: this section has been sectioned off from the above section, and is/was a reply to above discussion. -Ionized 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

SA wrote "The reason for this is that I can find absolutely no verifiable or reliable evidence that plasma cosmology is ever viewed outside of its own community as anything but ambiplasma suggestions." This was demonstrated above to be insufficient reasoning on which to base the removal of an entire article. The single source you used to begin this entire argument was demonstrated to be insufficient and misinformed. Plasma Cosmology as a framework exists independently of your opinion on the matter. It has been verified and is based on reliable sources, which appear in peer reviewed journals. You appear to be the only one that doesn't agree. How many times must we go over the same arguments, with you ignoring any evidence or sources we give? p.s. and on his currrent attempt to delete the Electric Universe article, ScienceApologist states "In fact, every IEEE transaction paper the contributor listed to show evidence of "notability" is not about "electric universe" but rather about plasma cosmology (a different idea)." thereby acknowledging the notability of Plasma Cosmology. -Ionized 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC) p.p.s here is an article that makes a reference to 'plasma cosmology' that was published in a standard peer reviewed journal: Meierovich, B.E., "Limiting current in general relativity", Gravit. Cosmol., vol 3, num 1, pp29-37, 1997. Another article, again peer reviewed: Opher, R., "Introduction to plasma astrophysics", Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, v41, A209-220,1999. Here is one that doesn't state the phrase 'plasma cosmology' explicitly, but uses some of the methods of PC: Dendy, R.O. and Kirk, J.G., "Energetic particles in plasma astrophysics", Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, v41, ppA427-35,1999. Here is another that explicitly uses the term 'plasma cosmology': Kolb, W.C., "How can spirals persist?", Astrophys. Space Sci., v227,n1-2,pp175-186,1995


 * Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the references you provide -- I would be very surprised to see anything related to the material of this article being taken seriously by the cosmology or physics community. Meierovich's article is not available online, so I couldn't check that out, but I very much doubt that it has anything to do with the kookiness here. In particular, of the forty three articles of his that are available online , Meierovich mentions "plasma cosmology" nowhere in any of his abstracts , and his work on high currents in GR that I was able to read online have nothing to say about the nonsense here. Opher's article on completely mainstream aspects of plasmas in astrophysics similarly has nothing to do with the material in this article and indeed never actually even uses the phrase "plasma cosmology" nor references any of the scientists mentioned in the article.


 * Finally (jackpot!) Whitney's article (Kolb is her middle name) finally appears to use the term "plasma cosmology" as it appears in this article, to discuss Peratt's work on galaxy structure. Sdedeo (tips) 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that "plasma cosmology" is primarily a neologism invented by Peratt and then adopted by Lerner. These two researchers are the primary current advocates of Alfven's work, but it is Alfven's work that is notable, not theirs (except as much as Lerner's book may have received some notability and there was some limited discussion of the ideas in the late 80s/early 90s). --ScienceApologist 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain again why Peratt's peer reviewed papers (and there are many) are not noteable? and Lerner's?  and Alfven's?  Sdedeo, my mistake on Ophers paper, I thought I had seen the phrase 'plasma cosmology', but indeed it was just 'cosmology', although as discussed previously there are only semantics involved in distinguishing plasma astrophysics into 'standard' categories, and indeed Opher's article discusses cosmological implications of plasma astrophysics.  As far as Meirerovich, the first line in that article's abstract states "Consideration of a current-carrying filament as an element of the structure of the Universe seems to be a reasonable theoretical approach to plasma cosmology."   I believe I found the abstract using INSPEC, or perhaps copied it right from the journal, it has been so many years I don't recall.  Thanks for pointing out that Kolb is the middle name, I was unaware of that. -Ionized 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can read about notability issues related to peer reviewed papers here and here. Anyway, it is Alfven's work that is most notable and so Alfven's ideas should be the ones that get the attention, not Peratt's and Lerner's. --ScienceApologist 00:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of who invented the term "plasma cosmology", I think it is a better name for the subject than "ambiplasma". Hmmm - a cursory check shows that Alfven wrote a book called "Cosmic Plasma".  Cardamon 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still uncomfortable with the neologism "plasma cosmology". I'm researching alternatives since ambiplasma seems to restrictive. --ScienceApologist 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neologism is interesting, thanks for pointing it out, and by it's definition it actually makes the term Plasma Cosmology seem VERY appropriate. Going by those definitions, I would consider the current state of the phrase 'Plasma Cosmology' as being diffused, but still bordering close to unstable.  As such, it seems most appropriate to keep the current article name of Plasma_cosmology. -Ionized 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps more relevant to our discussion would be if you read Avoid neologisms. --ScienceApologist 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can hear the 'death bells' ringing now... GG -Ionized 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. SA you have an amazing talent at pulling a different guideline from seemingly out of nowhere once a previous guideline was found to be unsuitable criteria for removal of this article.  I must say that I'm impressed.  Since I already stated that I found the description of the phrase 'plasma cosmology' as a neologism to be somewhat suitable, I can not retract that statement in order to oppose what will obviously and inevitably be your next attempt to delete this article.  Perhaps we can get input from others on whether, in this context, it is suitable to use the phrase as an article title (which appears to be the only real argument you will next be able to make in disfavor of the article.) -Ionized 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be so dour, Ionized. There are salvagable ideas here that can/should be reported in Wikipedia. First of all is Alfven's ambiplasma universe (a cosmology that has received attention from a wide range of sources). Secondly there was the brief period from the late 80s to early 90s were Lerner, Peratt, and a few others were able to convince the commnunity to lend them their ears until the COBE results came back. If this article is to survive, that's the direction I see it taking. The details of Peratt's galaxy formation models, Lerner's CMB and light nuclides, and the rambling prose about how wonderful plasma is will probably need to be excised or summarized. However, there is a subject here: it's just difficult to distill. I'm not sure the subject is rightly known as "plasma cosmology". I'm still researching the mainstream literature to find out what others have said. --ScienceApologist 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific ideas of this article
(note: this section too, was a continuation and reply from the above two sections. -Ionized 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, Ionized, simply discussing plasmas that have astrophysical or cosmological importance does not really have any relevance to the very specific ideas in this article. As far as I can tell from looking into this over the last half hour, it seems there is a train of work by Peratt and Lerner that does use the phrase plasma cosmology to refer to the ideas in the article here. Whether all of plasma cosmology can be subsumed under the ambiplasma concept I don't have the energy to judge. However, let me suggest that simply counting hits for the phrase "plasma cosmology" as an endorsement or discussion of the ideas in this article is rather annoying.

You would do better to look carefully at the history of the field and figure out exactly what is going on -- before listing papers for passersby like me to laboriously track down only to discover their irrelevance to the matter at hand.

As for peer reviewed papes being automatically notable -- this is something we are currently debating at Notability_%28science%29, and there appears to be a growing consensus that peer reviewed publications are an important, but not sufficient criterion for notability. Important is the citation history of the papers: in particular, how many citations per paper by outside groups. You're of course more than welcome to join the discussion there. Sdedeo (tips) 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your assumption that I have not investigated the history of these subjects. As previously stated, I devoted a major portion of my life to such a pursuit.  Today, I simply did a quick reference check to help curb SA's continuous arguments that the only people on earth who have ever mentioned the term 'plasma cosmology' are people in the 'plasma cosmology community' whatever that is.  I understand that there are current debates, and proposals on the table that will eradicate any possible attempt at including unorthodox views from wikipedia.  I also understand that SA has been a contributor to these proposals/guidelines, and it sure looks like a conflict of interest when you have an editor making changes to Wiki standards while at the same time using those changes to discredit and remove an article that has been on Wiki for over 4 years.  I appreciate your elucidation of the proposed criteria, that peer-reviewed journal papers will only be noteable if they are referenced to by 'other' peer reviewed journal papers.  Now THAT, is a catch-22. -Ionized 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You pointed me to three articles. One has nothing to do with the question at hand and another is doubtful. I was just annoyed to do the legwork to follow up on your post only to feel that you mostly wasted my time. What I suggest is that you pull together a list of people who have published papers explicitly dealing with the content of this article. I don't follow the "Catch-22" comment, can you explain? Sdedeo (tips) 00:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That has been tried before and the references end up getting removed with complaints that they are not related. Your annoyance is partly understood, however I was not attempting to waste anyones time, just attempting to point out the fallacy in thinking that the term 'plasma cosmology' is exclusive to 'plasma cosmologists'.  Also, SA routinely calls for citations hence I was doing him a favor by attempting to provide some he might find interesting, no malice was intended towards you or him.  This is what I meant by Catch22. -Ionized 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you provided the kinds of references you just provided me, then "not related" is precisely the term! What you need to do is find papers that use the term "plasma cosmology" in the specific way discussed here. By the way, publishing an article and having that article cited by someone else are not "mutually dependent" actions! In any case, please bring up concerns you might have with the notability criteria at WP:SCI. It is not a conflict of interest for you to be involved in this page and that at the same time. Sdedeo (tips) 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not a paper is related is a highly subjective topic. As discussed in multiple sections above, the paradigm of plasma cosmology takes a fundamentally different approach, and categorization of plasma astrophysics into 'standard' categories only does disservice to science, by denying the fact that plasma cosmology also relies on these basic physical principles.  Plasma cosmology does not fully deny Physical cosmology, it simply uses those parts of Physical cosmology which are not dependent upon and inherent to the BigBang framework.  Hmm maybe Catch22 was an improper term, I was addressing it in the sense that "You have peer-reviewed papers from multiple journals that address a subject.  Now you must show that those papers are cross-referenced within those same journals more than X number of times, where X is any number we arbitrarily set."  I am just voicing my annoyance at the attempt of setting a new standard based on number of times a paper is referenced by others, however I do see where that standard could be useful in removing articles that describe unorthodox views.  I don't see how it is not a conflict of interest to be involved in a debate about removing an article, then setting new criteria, then using that criteria to argue for removal of the article that was previously passing.  I see it as a conflict of interest because: 1) SA's interest should be to produce good articles 2) SA's then helps to change wiki standards because there was no justified arguement for removal of content otherwise before the change.    Producing a good article conflicts with the drive to eradicate articles by making policy changes that would allow for content removal where before content was acceptable.  I guess, if SA's interest is NOT to produce a good article about Plasma Cosmology, then his policy additions would no longer be in conflict with producing a good article. -Ionized 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, it's not subjective at all. If you claim a paper discusses the "plasma cosmology" as described in this article, but the paper does not reference a single paper by any of the authors described as contemporary proponents, it's fair to say you are wrong and the paper is unrelated. Citation statistics are one of the best ways to assess in an unbiased fashion how notable a theory may be. The question of what "X" is is something we are trying to pin down, but I don't imagine it to be a firm cutoff -- simply a guideline. However, since you seem to be uninterested in participating in the WP:SCI discussion, I'll let that drop. I was unable to follow your description of SA's conflict of interest, but let's let that drop as well. Sdedeo (tips) 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see your point, and agree that at times that can be a suitable criteria for determining noteability of some subjects. I am glad that X isn't pinned down just yet, and that you don't imagine it to be a firm cutoff.  I still have concerns and will try to find the time to address them in your discussion. -Ionized 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With all the discussion, and resistance, I see regarding plasma cosmology and it's obvious links to our own mythology I'm finding trouble to see why it is incredibly controversial. Plasmas behave a certain way, in space or otherwise. Our other window on this subject, Mythology, indicates plasma connections in the past dominated man's early existance. The "Waters above", the "Sweetwater Ocean", the "Absu", the "Pillar of heaven" etc. These are the foundations our our religions and have direct plasma relationships that were seen in the sky by everyone. Hence the near universality of the myths themselves. I am new here, so I do apologize for not citing, but given the strong convergence from many different areas (ie, Archeology, Mythology(Talbot/Cochrane), Plasma Science(A Peratt, Alven, Birkland), Cosmology (everyone), Psychology(J Jaynes)) seem to point to the same conclusion. I think in the end, the Truth will point to itself. Krackonis 11:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

New focus for the article
I have now finished with my research and have come up with a tenative plan for overhauling this article. The article, I think, should still be named "plasma cosmology" just to encompass as many ideas as possible. However, I'd like to attribute this term as much as possible. Right now it looks like Peratt wins for coining, but there may be someone who uses "plasma cosmology" as a term earlier than him.

Here is the my new proposed outline:


 * Lead
 * Plasma astrophysics (connections to the mainstream)
 * History of plasma cosmology
 * Alfven,Klein ambiplasma
 * 1980s/90s Lerner/Perrat publications


 * Critique and comparison to mainstream

I anticipate removing most of the text regarding the specifics of Lerner and Peratt's ideas as they are not notable for this encyclopedia (per new WP:SCI policies). I encourage comments.

--ScienceApologist 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm safely in Bogota now, so I can start in on the conversations again. I think your proposed outline is good. Not too short, not too long, not too confined, and not too all-inclusive. I think a summary of the ideas of Lerner and Peratt is fine, maybe a paragraph for each of them instead of a paragraph for each idea. On the critique and comparison section, we need to be careful to keep a neutral tone, since it is this part of the article that has received the most heated discussions. ABlake 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why we would focus on plasma astrophysics 'connections to the mainstream' instead of connections to plasma cosmology? We already have enough articles on mainstream connections, it would seem, and this remains, after all, an article about plasma cosmology.  You see I wouldn't want that section to turn into a big advertisement for the BigBang as parts of this article have in the past.  I see no reason why we can't discuss ideas that are relevant to plasma cosmology instead of focusing on the mainstream.  But then maybe I don't quite get what you intend for that section, it will be interesting to see it take shape, so I will reserve judgment for when it is changed.  I think your newly made policies are far too strict, and the attempt to remove as much as possible about Lerner and Peratt will only do disservice to the article.  Both of those people have become key public figures for plasma cosmology, and it is essential that their contributions are included.  I also wish that you would allow a more broad approach to contributor mentioning, there are a lot of people that have contributed auxiliary knowledge to this field, knowing that their work would be applied to it in some manner or another.  Otherwise, I look forward to seeing what happens to the article, at least you don't plan on deleting or merging it anymore, and I am thankful for that. -Ionized 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what I was intending was illustrating the concept of an astrophysical plasma so that the reader had some background context for the article. Since plasmas are mainstream concepts in astrophysics, that section would necessarily be connected to mainstream astrophysics (I'm envisioning astrophysical plasma as being the main article for that subject). --ScienceApologist 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Explained as you just did, that makes much more sense now. Thanks for your clarification. -Ionized 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)  p.s., before your current attempt to have me banned  for including information that Ian provided on my talk page, I was going to thank you for having what appears to be a slight change of heart.  While it is obvious now that you still have malice against me personally, disallowing me to fully resume good faith, it also appears that you have resumed your role of Wikipedian and due to your admission that Plasma Cosmology is 'salvageable' and your willingness to keep the article title in tact after further researching the topic, I would like to state that I can partly resume 'assuming good faith' in your edits here.  While in the past it was VERY clear that your intent was to remove the article, it is now clear that you are willing to work with us to keep the article in some manner.  Hence, even though you are now calling for me to be banned, I will state that I am now able to retract my earlier statement from a while ago that "ScienceApologist needs to be banned from editing this article. It is the only way we will be able to constructively work on the article."  My making this statement is in no way connected to you calling for my ban, I fully intended to commend you for your new attitude towards the article before I found that you reported me, and hence I felt I should still state this as it remains true.  In fact I was in the middle of making a comment to this effect when I had to reference my talk page and discovered you had reported me.  It is a shame that such personal dispute must take place here, as we should all be focused on improving the article at hand. -Ionized 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be nice if you all could move forward on what looks like the glimmerings of a spirit of collegiality? As I indicated elsewhere, posting verbatim comments from a banned user amounts to acting as that user's proxy; the appropriate response would not be a site block, but to apply the same article ban (let's keep things in proportion).  One of the functions of banning a disruptive editor from an article or talk page is to allow other, more reasonable editors time to work together productively, as constantly reacting to (real or perceived) provocation takes so much effort that progress doesn't get made.  This can't happen if another editor decides to carry the same torch.  You have 2-1/2 weeks left of comparative calm.  Use it well. Thatcher131 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can now remove the merge tag since we have reached consensus not to merge? I'm going to go ahead and remove the merge tag from the article, so that we can resume improvement to the article itself. -Ionized 04:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to SA's proposed organization in general, although it it not clear what he has in mind in detail. There are some things that might not be notable of themselves, but I would have reservations about removing them. For example, there are a few basic questions that any alternative cosmology has to face, such as the origin of the CMB and the origin of the light elements, especially deuterium, and I think these should be addressed for completeness. Sometimes the statement might be simply that no answer has been published. In other cases, such as deuterium, an answer has been attempted, but it is verifiably incomplete. --Art Carlson 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PC WIP
I've created a page where I'm going to develop the proposal. Hopefully it shouldn't take too long. I encourage other editors to help out on that page too. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First impression is that scaling motivations should be in an entirely different section than discussion of the ambiplasma model. Before discussion of any individual model within PC, I would add an entire section perhaps titled "Basis of Plasma Cosmology" or something similar in which we can elucidate the basic principles inherent to the paradigm as a whole, independent of the models put forth which are based on those principles. -Ionized 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)  p.s., in fact right off the bat I would change the introduction.  It goes right into the ambiplasma model rather than beginning an overview of what plasma cosmology itself is about.  We definitely need to expand on plasma cosmology as a discipline before jumping into specific models built within the discipline. -Ionized 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the ambiplasma model is the most notable of all plasma cosmology suggestions. That's why we should go into it right off the bat. I am also of the opinion that the "basis of plasma cosmology" that you any Ian champion is actually original research and has to go. There are two points relevant to plasma cosmology: plasmas (to be discussed in the section about plasmas) and cosmology (to be discussed in the sections regarding first Alfven and then later Peratt/Lerner -- criticisms). Does that make sense? --ScienceApologist 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made several changes to your template, apparently while you where typing the above response. I will now read your above response. -Ionized 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., read your response, and I disagree, as outlined in the multiple sections above in this talk page, plasma cosmology is an entire discipline and focusing on ambiplasma as if it is the entire basis is doing severe disservice to elucidation of the discipline as a whole. -Ionized 16:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC) And the basis of plasma cosmology was outlined in several peer reviewed papers written first by Alfven, later summarized by colleagues.  The basis of an entire paradigm as outlined and elucidated in Alfvens books and papers along with papers by Peratt and the book by Lerner, is not original research. -Ionized 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that we are describing a "discipline" or a "paradigm" here. Plasma cosmology is a proposal made by Alfven and a handful of his students: it is not a discipline. It is also not a "paradigm" because it doesn't have any legitimacy outside the "paradigm" of astrophysics -- and the parts of Alfven, Lerner, and Peratt's work that agree with astrophysics cannot obviously be said to be part of this new "paradigm". The "paradigm" we are working from is astrophysics: plasma cosmology is a proposal. I have tweaked some of your wording to the lead. I do believe that ambiplasma needs to be discussed directly. I'm hoping that we will simply link ambiplasma directly to this page (the reverse merge option). I also think that the Alfven-Klein model will have to link here too. --ScienceApologist 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is where our disagreement is most obvious, and as discussed in many sections above, this being one of those sections, the disagreement between plasma cosmology as a paradigm is where reconciliation is least likely to occur between our viewpoints. For now I will simply observe your template as it is built. -Ionized 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., I also don't understand your statement that it has no legitimacy outside of astrophysics, as it is clearly legitimate and discussed outside of mainstream astrophysical journals. -Ionized 16:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., I would also like to add that since, as you have previously stated, editing works by consensus, we will have to at least agree on some sort of compromise before this content is turned into the new article.  For now I will observe your template being built, but at some point we will have to add in the paradigmatic framework considerations, because, it is in fact, a paradigm. -Ionized 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of context. Plasma cosmology has no context outside scientific circles. Scientific circles relevant to these subjects are dominated by the current practice of astrophysics. Ergo, plasma cosmology has no context outside the paradigm of astrophysics. If this weren't true, why else would you have wasted your time trying to get a Bachelor's degree in physics? The point is that the only legitimacy this idea has is in relation to it being opposed to or commenting on the mainstream: otherwise it defies notability. Consensus is important, but if you cannot provide any reliable sources for people outside of plasma cosmology calling it a paradigm or a framework, then we will have to marginalize (to the point of exclusion if necessary) that sense in any "compromise" article. --ScienceApologist 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A longer response, hence indent removed: It certainly still has context in philosophical discussion, along with context within science. I agree that scientific fields are dominated by status quo. I disagree that plasma cosmology has no context outside of the scientific status quo. It is unfortunate that you believe I wasted my time studying physics, and that you would state this makes me think that it is you who places less value on scientific study, however that would be far too ironic, so I am perhaps taking your statement out of context. I pursued a bachelors in physics for 5 years and left in my final semester due in part to extreme personal circumstances that are physically disabling, but mostly due to finances. Surely you wish to be spared the reasons, hence I suggest you quit bringing it up, permanently. I feel my time spent studying the 'hard-science' version of physics at university was of utmost importance in my understanding of science, human perception, and the universe as a whole, and it certainly augmented my previous study of the history of science from an anthropological perspective. Back to the point you where trying to make before bringing up my studies, if indeed this idea has legitimacy only in relation to it being opposed to the mainstream, then by all means it's paradigmatic basis needs to be discussed. You still claim that you believe that it is not viewed as a paradigm from outside of the people that study it, yet I am curious what sources you used that allowed you to finally realize the importance of the topic enough for you to stop your attempts at merging/removing the article, and instead focus on better describing plasma cosmology. You told us you did a lot of research, which I am glad to hear, yet I am curious what exactly you read. It would seem that those same sources are the ones fitting the criteria you are stating. I see another source that may have been overlooked before, that indeed mentions plasma cosmology within the paradigmatic mindset, outside of what you keep calling 'plasma cosmology circles': "Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe" by science historian Prof. Helge Kragh  (Princeton Univ. Press). Anyhow, we have gone over this for a long time now, if any compromise needs to be made, it is the compromise of allowing a paradigmatic overview to be included. -Ionized 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will resist any attempt to frame plasma cosmology as a paradigm as I see that as being original research. If you wish to pursue that course, I suggest you go through dispute resolution proceseses. --ScienceApologist 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I read Kragh's book three years ago. It is a very good read. It does not treat plasma cosmology as a paradigm. --ScienceApologist 17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that you are, again, ignoring previously stated sources and evidence. Anyhow, I must disengage for a while.  We will indeed have to reconcile this difference with help from people who study paradigmatic differences, do you happen to know any Wiki editors that fit the bill so that they can give a less biased opinion?  I personally don't know any. -Ionized 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., and your obvious statement that you will simply resist any attempt at reconciliation or compromise, goes in direct conflict with my newfound attempt to resume having 'good faith' in your contributions here.  Perhaps you would like to rethink your decision. -Ionized 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to "rethink" my "decision". There is no evidence that plasma cosmology represents an alternative paradgim since it hasn't been developed enough to exist as such. There has been absolutely no evidence provided that supports your idealization of a plasma cosmology "approach" to astronomy. Peratt and Lerner's ideas are their own and not indicative of any sort of programatic approach. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 'But that is like, just your opinion, man..' paraphrase of 'The Dude' from the movie 'The Big Lebowski'. We need the opinions of others to be involved.  It is too bad Ian had been banned from discussion.  Anyhow, I REALLY have to go for the day, I will check on the progress later.  -Ionized 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just my opinion. If plasma cosmology really were programatic, there would be actual academic programs which support it. --ScienceApologist 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, in Ancient Greece they had Epicycles to describe the movement of planets. Their academic programs supported that. Krackonis 11:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did. And if we were writing Wikipedia in ancient Greece our article on epicycles would illustrate this. --ScienceApologist 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WIP done
I am finished with a preliminary rough-draft of the Talk:Plasma cosmology/WIP. I did a terrible job with the criticisms section. That section needs to be changed/tightened-up/excised of irrelevant commentary. I am pretty proud of the rest of the article though. Please help! --ScienceApologist 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we may be close to being ready to go live with the WIP. Are there any outstanding objections? I'm going to wait for User:Ionized to get back from whatever vacation he is on to comment. --ScienceApologist 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Outstanding objections to your WIP are listed in the section just above. Unfortunately I simply don't have the time to continue fighting with you over this, so I'm just going to roll with the punches at this point.  It is interesting that no one else has voiced their opinion.  I still stand by all of what I said above, and since even Alfven called this a paradigm, I would think the burden is on you to prove it is not.  Anyhow, even if you go live with the WIP, it's not like we can't resolve issues later and just reshape the article the way it should be.  Again, my standing objection is that the article is not being treated comprehensively, and I still find it interesting that you oppose the idea of Plasma Cosmology as being a paradigm, realizing it is would help you to realize that the article is lacking a lot of content.  But we both know that even though the evidence is clear, it is not for Wiki editors to decide whether Plasma Cosmology is a paradigm.  What is verifiable is the following:


 * Alfvén himself described the Plasma Universe as a paradigm in more than one of his papers. He described a 'cosmological pendulum' in which cosmologies oscillate between prophetic and actualistic paradigms.  All those papers where referenced in the article long ago but looks like those refs might have been removed.  As a start you can try: Model of the Plasma Universe, Hannes Alfvén.  IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. PS-I4, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1986 Available for download at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html


 * Anthony L. Peratt writes: "Our knowledge of space and cosmic plasma has made such great progress that it is appropriate to speak of a change in paradigm.", see Guest Editorial Sixth Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 31, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2003. Available for download at http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html


 * Stephen G. Brush, currently Distinguished Professor of the History of Science, http://punsterproductions.com/~sciencehistory/ wrote: "Alfvén himself has recently described his programme as a paradigm transition" [..] It could be argued that if Alfvén’s work represents a new paradigm, then according to Kuhn’s [4] model we should not expect the decision to accept or reject it to be based on logical proof or conclusive evidence, merely on a decision to look at the world in a different way. But, contrary to Kuhn’s model, Alfvén’s “paradigm” has coexisted with the traditional paradigm in this field for several decades; the community has adopted the results of the new paradigm (Alfvén waves, field-aligned currents, etc.) while rejecting the method by which those results were obtained. But the Alfvén case has some peculiarities that should make us cautious about drawing any general conclusions concerning the role of predictions and paradigms in science. I turn now to one of them." - Alfvén’s Programme in Solar System Physics, Stephen G. Brush IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 20, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1992


 * -Ionized 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest changing these two sentences:


 * "At this time there was a limited interest in the cosmological community in the subject due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not be a blackbody. However, the final announcement of the discovery of background anisotropies announced in April 1992 by the COBE satellite put to rest the controversy surrounding the Big Bang and effectively ended the community's renewed interest in non-standard cosmologies. Since then, research in cosmology has all but assumed the Big Bang model."


 * to this:


 * "At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other non-standard cosmologies). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; plasma cosmology has not since factored significantly in cosmological research."


 * This way of saying it talks more directly about Plasma Cosmology leaving less to be misinterpreted by readers (or other editors), along with a few stylistic suggestions -- TristanDC 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your change. p.s., though I would change the very last part of your change from "plasma cosmology has not since factored significantly in cosmological research" to "plasma cosmology has not since factored significantly in mainstream cosmological research", which itself isn't entirely true because the mainstream cosmologists have adapted plasma astrophysics pretty well, mostly ignoring where it even came from, but that is besides the point. -Ionized 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "plasma cosmology has not since factored significantly in cosmological research" is significantly different in meaning to "research in cosmology has all but assumed the Big Bang model". My version suggests that the plasma cosmology theories have had little effect on other work, which would be a difficult statement to justify since it would required reading researchers minds to understand their motivations. How about "the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted" -- TristanDC 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure of the wikipedia netiquette here. Can I make this change to the WIP article? -- TristanDC 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, I would definitely suggest being 'bold', that is mostly what the WIP is for at this point. -Ionized 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As in the rest of Wikipedia, everyone here is encouraged to make changes to the WIP article. --ScienceApologist 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you need to mention Hubble's Law somewhere? This observation is even more important than the CMB to the Big Bang model, so the question of how plasma cosmology deals with it is unavoidable. --Art Carlson 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My problem is that the cites don't really illustrate a singluar way of dealing with Hubble's Law. Alfven seemed to be content with the idea that an expanding matter bubble in an ambiplasma universe would provide energy to have a physical expansion (as in the Milne universe) but he leaves the details of this idea unaddressed in his works. Otherwise, it seems that Lerner simply has skepticism that redshift is attributable to an expanding universe. While there are indications that "plasma redshifts" may come into play (tired light styles), these again aren't developed. So how do we address all this? --ScienceApologist 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the WIP page is really good, and I apologize for not contributing. Life happened. The article has a very fair tone to it, even the comparison section, so good job. ABlake 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stealth creationism
Did Alfven refer literally to "ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism" in the reference cited? I couldn't find it, although it would fit the tone of the essay. I think this phase should be attributed if possible (placed in quotation marks with a footnote to a page number), or elsed toned down to a NPOV form if it is the creation of a wiki-editor. --Art Carlson 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The prose should be changed. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why something like that should be in this article at all, it should be in wikipedia to represent Alfven's opinion (if that even is his opinion) but only in Alfven's bio. It is not a statement that says much about Plasma Cosmology so it is totally superfluous, IMHO. -- TristanDC 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your quote is a direct quote from Alfven actually, I definitely remember seeing it or something just like it in one of his papers, though my collection of actual printed out papers (hooray for inter-library loans) are in storage 80 miles away, I would have to dig them back out and reread to find a page number etc. Alfven believed in focusing on the present process and structure of the universe and found little merit in creation-like models for the universe as a whole.  I think once attributed it could remain in this article if added in the context of a more comprehensive section describing how Cosmogony of the universe as a whole (as opposed to solar systems, which are definitely considered) plays little role in this paradigm. -Ionized 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't leave out the option of expansion, or a cyclic process, and I hope I didn't come across as saying that it specifically did.-Ionized 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WIP advocates vs. work
The WIP currently has a section titled "Later advocates". I think this should be "Later work" because the advocacy isn't terribly interesting to the readers I'd expect to read this article. The meat is in the work (however little) that has been done. Fortunately the advocacy already mentioned seems to have been in the form of work (in the scientific discourse sense), so it is a simple matter of making the heading relevant to the reader. -- TristanDC 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Later developments" may actually be a better way of putting it. --ScienceApologist

WIP going live
WIP is going live. Please help us make the article as good as it can be. --ScienceApologist 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed to talk...
Ionized, I removed your added prose to talk for discussion. Here it is:


 * Other proposals made by Alfvén include, but are not limited to, the idea that the Universe: 

We already discuss this idea. The "cellular" structure is do to the ambiplasma domains.
 * Has a cellular structure
 * Verifiably wrong, go read the citations and do a comprehensive study of the subject before making such false claims. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this wrong? The cellular structure was attributable to Alfven's ambiplasma instincts. It's fairly clear in his early papers he wrote with Klein. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And it is discussed in detail in Alfvens book 'Cosmic Plasma', clearly stating that it is not Ambiplasma based, as double layers and current sheets apply to regions of normal plasma as well. -Ionized 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But Cosmic Plasma is about more than plasma cosmology. C. f. astrophysical plasmas. Sure cellular nature of plasmas exists elsewhere, but what does it have to do with plasma cosmology beyond the already mentioned ambiplasma structures? --ScienceApologist 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are contradicting yourself here. I need not explain what has already been explained numerous times, and explained deeply in Alfvens papers and book, and expanded upon by Peratt and Lerner.  You continue to ignore sources, and refuse to put the pieces together for yourself, asking us to do it simply so that you can say 'I don't believe that' when we are done.  No thanks. -Ionized 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you won't tell me what you are trying to do, I cannot evaluate your ideas and compare them to the research. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. -Ionized 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is already discussed (in some detail).
 * May contain Antimatter
 * Later discussion of a topic in a summarizing bulleted list is perfectly fine, and recommended -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Who recommended that? --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the editors I have ever met, including multiple physicists who have written hundreds of peer-reviewed journals on a variety of physics topics published in a variety of physics journals. Surely there are also examples of this basic editing technique here on Wikipedia. -Ionized 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never had any reviewer ever tell me that a summarizing bulleted list is perfectly fine and recommended. Our communities must differ. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed.
 * is not created as put forth in the conventional Big Bang model
 * Later discussion of a topic in a summarizing bulleted list is perfectly fine, and recommended -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it is redundant, repetitive, and something of a snowjob. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually, is the one part of the list I figured you would just remove while leaving the rest of the list. What is a snowjob?-Ionized 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * snowjob. --ScienceApologist 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you, of all people, are calling me a liar? Claiming I am 'covering up' something by trying to elucidate what Alfven actually wrote?  I find that ironic. -Ionized 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, claiming that the Big Bang implies the universe is "created" is a definite cover-up and borderline lie. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Too vague. I believe you're dealing with Birkeland currents, but Lerner is the one who really fleshes the argument out. Alfven couldn't because filamentary structure wasn't known when he was alive.
 * is penetrated by a network of currents which transport energy over large distances
 * This is nearly a direct quote of Alfven, how is that too vague? -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it makes no specific claim. It is like saying "the universe has big electric currents". So what? What does this have to do with plasma cosmology specifically?
 * Perhaps that it is part of the entire basis of the paradigm? How is that not evident? -Ionized 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. also, it is not dealing specifically with Birkeland currents only, although they too are considered.  Remember we have current sheets and 'Active' and 'Passive' plasma regions, where currents play a role, diffuse or otherwise.  This is also discussed in his book 'Cosmic Plasma'.  In fact I was going to add a section describing his classification of regions into passive and active, but now I feel it would be a serious waste of time to put work into this article only to have it reverted by you continuosly. -Ionized 03:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire basis of the "paradigm" is basically ambiplasma. Unless there are actually observed passive and active regions with their filling factors, how does this rise above the level of idle speculation? What does this illustrate about cosmology? --ScienceApologist 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you contradict yourself and ignore what has been stated and sourced. -Ionized 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any contradiction. Nor have I ignored you. Hmm.... --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed.
 * contains double layers which may accelerate particles to very high energies
 * Later discussion of a topic in a summarizing bulleted list is perfectly fine, and recommended -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Alfvén also claimed that:  I toyed with including this idea, but found it to be too intactable because Alfven was vague in his description of this. In particular, Alfven thought that energy release in plasma was relevant in almost every phenomenon he examined, so singling out radio lobes, QSOs, and Seyferts is a bit artificial nearly to the point of being original research. What is true is that Alfven though that energy released in plasma interactions might be more prevalent that astronomers were accounting for.
 * the new paradigm allows for newer approaches to modeling energy release in double radio sources, QSO, and Seifert galaxies, among other astrophysical phenomena
 * Again, this is nearly a direct quote from a list Alfven himself typed, and it was cited, no reason not to include as part of his original list. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because Alfven said it does not mean it has to be in the article. We are the editors, not Alfven. I gave you a good argument for why this doesn't belong in the article and you did not respond to its substance. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If he thought it was important to almost every phenomena he imagined, as you claim, then THIS idea needs to be included. Please include the remark that he thought it was important to nearly everything.  I was simply giving specific examples of things he actually claimed, very substantive if you ask me. -Ionized 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to reword it to aim it spefically at plasma energy release in general and not attributed to specific phenomena since Alfven thought it was universal. However, he didn't always distinguish between plasma energy and annihilation energy in his treatises, so there is an argument that we already discuss this. --ScienceApologist 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, an interesting editorial point. However, I believe he did distinguish this most of the time if not all, he was quite good at writing and making clear what he meant. -Ionized 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he certainly doesn't do it in the paper he wrote with Klein proposing their eponymous model. --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't so much a claim as a non-starter. It doesn't represent any sort of novel approach.
 * cosmic plasma is often dusty
 * Again, this is nearly a direct quote from a list Alfven himself typed. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. If it doesn't explain anything it doesn't belong in the article. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * from pp111 of 'Cosmic Plasma'- "Such clouds are known to consist of dusty plasma, which means that the properties of dusty plasma clouds are decisive for the earliest periods of the formation of stars and solar systems." from pp92-93 of 'Cosmic Plasma', section IV.7 Dusty Plasma - "Cosmic plasmas are very often dusty, by which we mean that they contain solid particles, some of which are very small dust grains.  These are usually electrically charged, and if their charge to mass ratio is large enough their motion may be essentially controlled by electromagnetic forces so that they can be considered as part of a dusty plasma.  For a review, see Mendis (1979).  Charged dust in planetary magnetospheres has been investigated by Hill and Mendis (1979,1980).  The temperature of the solid particles in a cosmic plasma may differ from the plasma temps by orders of magnitude.  If the plasma is transparent and the solid particles radiate into space, their temp may, for example, be 10K even if the electron temp is 10^4K, the ion temp 10^3K, and the molecular temp 100K.  IV.7.1 - Solid Particles as part of a Plasma - A solid particle in a cosmic plasma receives negative electric charge essentially from the plasma electrons hitting it.  The particle may then lose the charge by the photoeffect, sometimes also by field emission, and by the positive ions hitting it.  Usually the particle charge is 1-10V positive or negative  However, if the plasma contains superthermal electrons these can sometimes give the grain a negative potential of several thousand volts.  Sudden changes between a few volts and several thousand volts have often been measured on spacecraft orbiting the Earth.  IV.7.2 - Electromagnetically and Gravitationally controlled motion of solid particles -" the last section is the most interesting, but I'm leaving it out.  The point is that in this paradigm, with extrapolation over orders of magnitude based on in-situ research, solar system and space physics are indeed inherently connected to the understanding of the larger scales and the understanding of plasma cosmology as a whole.  Alfven made this point numerous times throughout his elucidation of the subject.  Just because you don't see it's relevance to plasma cosmology, does not mean that Alfven didn't. -Ionized 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What a lot of prose for a conclusion that is so prosaic! That dusty plasmas are important in astrophysics is not debatable nor is it that profound. Why does such a point belong in this article? --ScienceApologist 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Too vague to be of descriptive use. What exactly was important about critical ionization velocity to plasma cosmology?
 * critical velocity phenomena is often important
 * If you don't know, then you have not researched it enough, have not read the given sources which explain in full why it is important, and have no business removing cited material from the article. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have researched it very closely and find nothing more than noting. As such I submit it is not worth including. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is either already discussed (in the mentioning of z-pinches causing star formation) or is too vague to be of descriptive use.
 * the new paradigm allows for a new approach in the study of solar system origins
 * Again, this is nearly a direct quote from a list Alfven himself typed. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an irrelevant argument. I don't care who typed it, if it doesn't help the article it doesn't belong in the article. -ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can provide us with further explanations that would be useful for the page, but as it is I don't see that this material is worth keeping.
 * If you would take the time, perhaps maybe a year or two, to do some research by reading Alfven's books, reading all of his papers, you would not need further explanation. Why should you insist that I do your work for you? Your disruption of this article has gone on long enough. -Ionized 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it is so difficult for you to research and you think it requires a year or two to be able to read all of Alfven's papers. I have read every paper referenced by this article including those you referenced. What I'm telling you is based on research. Since you obviously won't or can't support your arguments with much more than "Alfven said it" or "You are a bad researcher" or "I'm not going to tell you" then I think you have to reconsider how you interact with me as those arguments don't really hold much sway. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are seriously misguided here. I was not claiming it is difficult to research.  What Im telling you is also based on research.  I have supported what I added with a citation to the original list.  My arguments have been made over the past 4 years on these talk pages, you seriously think they need to be restated?  I don't, you are rehashing ancient (in Wikipedia time) arguments that have already been discussed and moved past.  Your wholesale rewrite of the article claiming that "I will resist any attempt to frame plasma cosmology as a paradigm as I see that as being original research." went on in direct opposition to discussion concerning a more comprehensive look at the topic, with no proof cited of your opinion on the matter.  You have again clearly demonstrated that you refuse to work with me to include proper content in the article, or to at least include it in a manner that is clear and concise.  My addition of the list was an attempt to be just that, more clear and concise about the 'provocative proposals' that Alfven made.  You consistently call for me to waste my time coming up with references that you seem to simply ignore, and I won't stand for it.  If you can't allow OTHERS to write the article in a more concise manner, than what good is even trying?  I have obviously reconsidered how I interact with you, as evidenced by BOLD edit to the article, based on verifiable and cited work. -Ionized 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find anything in the archives that indicates that your itemized list is as justified as you seem to think it is. Your list isn't just "provacative", it oscillates between prosaic and ad hoc without justification or exposition. You need to expand/explain the ideas you are trying to illustrate. If there really is anything to it, that shouldn't be too hard. --ScienceApologist 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, ScienceApologist 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that you call it 'prose', shows absolute and clear ignorance of the matter. If you would take the 5 minutes to research the citation, you would see that this list is almost a direct quote of a similar list that Alfvén gave in the paper that I cited. Perhaps you should read this citration before removing verifiable content? -Ionized 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming (as you can see in my commentary) that the content you are proposing is inaccurate, wrong, or not what Alfven said. Please reread my comments, I believe I was very clear in this matter. --ScienceApologist 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You called it 'prose', by which you meant it was original research by myself, or my interpretation of a source. If you look at the source, you will see it is not 'prose'.  I reverted this list back into the article, there is no reason why a summarizing list can not be included near the articles beginning, and the topics expanded upon after.  This is a pretty standard practice. -Ionized 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read prose. I am not trying to imply you engaged in original research. You plainly didn't. Since you did not address any of my substantive complaints, I am going to insist that the list remain out of the article until you come up with an editorial reason beyond "Alfven wrote it" to include it. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you feel I write so eloquently! Unfortunately I can't take credit for the list entirely, as it was a near direct quote from Alfven, paraphrased slightly for proper format in the article.  By the way, the list was simply the beginning of various edits planned to make the article more clearly written, it is unfortunate that you decide to interrupt at this stage, as it disallows me to resume good faith in your behavior, thereby disallowing me to continue putting such grand effort into proper wording of the article. -Ionized 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., I did address your complaints, and I find your continual use of "already discussed" to be entirely invalid when applied to a summarizing bulleted list, especially when the discussion takes place later in the page... -Ionized 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Already discussed" means that the point is already discussed in the article. I get the feeling you want to add a lot to the article, but starting with a mostly redundant and often vague or awkwardly considered list does not inspire confidence in the hypothetical prose you will add in the future. I am not by any means pretending that the article as is cannot be improved, but for the reasons I gave I do not see your additions helping in that regard. --ScienceApologist 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what 'already discussed' means, yet you fail to see my point that a summarizing list is perfectly fine near the beginning of an article. I already indicated that it was just the first edit along these lines, for you to claim it is redundant, ad hoc without justification or exposition, prosaic, is absolutely absurd because you interrupt before a chance is given to fix the rest of the article in the manner you desire. I see you use this same technique in other articles as well, removing content before a chance is given for other editors to integrate it properly. You claim I don't expand on the topics, but that is the whole point of the rest of the article, you summarize at the beginning, and expand later, this is a very basic editing technique that you seem to be purposely pretending like you don't get, perhaps you would prefer the article remain unclear on not precise? Your arguments are themselves redundant and often contradict your own previous statements, and you continue to ignore the points already made several times, while asking me to keep making them so that you can continue to ignore them. I simply won't play your games, they do not help to construct a comprehensive article on the subject, and do nothing but waste time and delay what you know very well would be a proper addition to the article. You continue to evade the paradigmatic considerations, calling my 'prose' 'hypothetical', yet it comes directly from Alfven. You continue to claim that Ambiplasma is the basis of the paradigm (while contradicting yourself because you already admitted you believe this isn't a paradigm at all,) yet it was made clear by Alfven, and you can even see it in his own wording, that Ambiplasma was simply a consideration in the paradigm, not necessary at all for its basis. Yes, it was his preferred model within the paradigm, even in the book 'Cosmic Plasma' he argued that antimatter should be considered more than it is, but he also made it clear that plasma cosmology can exist without those considerations, because it consists of a much broader method of investigation and framework of thought, based on the considerations of normal plasma throughout the universe. This was demonstrated several times in the talk page above, each time you claim that Ambiplasma is all that matters I explained how it is not all that matters. It is even part of the list I gave, directly quoted "the universe may contain Antimatter", this, combined with everything else Alfven wrote about plasma cosmology, indicates clearly that Ambiplasma is not the basis on which the paradigm rests. For you to continue along those lines of pretending it is, is detrimental to the quality and accuracy of the article. In the end, I believe you win, because the negative attitude you bring to the discussion really prevents me from even wanting to help edit here. It is a fine technique, one you have mastered quite skillfully, though I can see right through it. I have tried being civil with you, I watched you attempt to merge this article, attempt to find numerous reasons to delete it, yet you must have been warned by someone privately or something, cause you miraculously desisted in those attempts, which I was glad for. However, your current attempts at controlling the content are simply the latest round in what appears to be, as you yourself termed it, a 'pathological fury' towards preventing this paradigm from being properly described here in Wikipedia. Perhaps Ian was right, perhaps Wikipedia is simply no longer setup to handle the description of non-mainstream views, no matter how verifiable, factual and scientific. As I stated on the delete page for Harold Aspen, Wikipedia has changed over the years, perhaps it is time for me to officially and permanently withdraw? I can imagine the smile it would put on your face if I did, heck it almost makes me smile knowing that your deceptive practices successfully bypassed proper etiquette enough to drive me away. Don't get me wrong, I do have some respect for you SA, you show a clear sense of determination which is shared by only a few people on earth. -Ionized 16:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this article needs a bulleted list as I think the prose already does a fine job of explaining plasma cosmology. If you plan on expanding your ideas, I encourage you to be a little more transparent and I'll try to extend to you the same courtesy. I don't like to leave misleading or editorially unsound content in an article, and I don't think removing misleading or editorially unsound content is problematic. If you are going to "expand" on these topics, why not sandbox it? That way you won't confuse the other editors. I'm curious to find out which points I made were contradictory or ignoring, and as we discussed earlier, I don't find the "paradigm" argument lucid or clearly demarcated at all, nor do I think that just because you use Alfven as a source that necessarily means that your prose is inviolable. Alfven liked plasma. Ambiplasma was his answer to cosmology. Thus plasma cosmology and ambiplasma are intimately connected. That's why ambiplasma now links here! I would encourage you to find a quote from "Cosmic Plasma" that comes close to saying that "plasma cosmology would exist without ambiplasma". Claiming, as you do that Alfven thinking anti-matter is important is evidence that he doesn't think that the ambiplasma is necessary for plasma cosmology is very weird. While I don't think Wikipedia will be better if you go, I do not regret my editting of this article nor any of the discussions we've had with regards to this or other subjects. --ScienceApologist 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can be a bit negative myself, I apologize. I have no problem with you including Ambiplasma here.  But the article needs to include all aspects of plasma cosmology.  We both know that Ambiplasma  was a part of this cosmology.  However, just as there are numerous other contributors to the paradigm which are not being mentioned clearly and properly, there are currently numerous other aspects of the cosmology as a whole that are being left out of the article, or included in a fashion that is unclear.  A more comprehensive article is all I ask.  Could you again copy the current article over to a WIP page, and perhaps I will only add to that, as time allows.  Can this article be attended by more of the wikiprojects?-Ionized 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article does a superb job of including "all aspects" of plasma cosmology. I don't think there are "numerous other contributors to the paradigm" that deserve mention here. I agree that there are other (perhaps not numerous) aspects of cosmology which are not mentioned in this article (e.g. Hubble's law), but this is a wiki after all. I don't know what you mean by a "more comprehensive" article. What I am hoping is that you don't mean what the article was like before the WIP was instituted. This article can be attended by as many wikiprojects as deem it to be under their domain. Likewise, you are free to sandbox the article to your heart's content. --ScienceApologist 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your tone and arguments leave much to be desired, and again you are displaying your characteristic ignorance of the topic. Just because you don't think it is relevant (or more accurately, that you don't understand why it is relevant) does not give you the authority to wholesale remove large chunks of the article if other editors disagree with you. You have been cautioned by the arbitration committee to stop being so obstinant - please read and understand the material or kindly go edit something else that you are knowledgeable about. Jon 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jon, much of the previous debate involves not only relevance, but notability. Much content, and the Electric Universe page in its entirety, has been removed on the basis of lack of notability, not relevance. If you care to demonstrate notability of a particular aspect that has been left out, feel free. ABlake 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've criticized ScienceApologist for the word "ignorant" because it adds heat without adding any light, so now it's Jon's turn. The arbitration committee didn't caution ScienceApologist for begin ignorant of something he has debated in endless detail for over a year. Anyway, I'm not criticizing "you don't understand..." which is the same allegation without so much insulting overtone. Art LaPella 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition
I've brought this up twice already, but I'm still not satisified with the definition, or lack thereof, for plasma cosmology. The first sentence does nothing to inform me what plasma cosmology is all about. It says it is nonstandard, and that Alfven was the developer, but it says nothing about what PC is as a thought system. If I look farther for a definition, it isn't in the first paragraph, second paragraph, etc. I've mentioned that a good definition is key to the proper development of an article, so I'm bringing it up again. Any thoughts? ABlake 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be bold and add the best definition I can come up with. ABlake 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems "okay" to me, though I imagine there may be some argument as to how to compare it to gravity. It's clear that Alfven didn't like GR applied on a large scale. However, I'm willing to bet that if he had lived to see WMAP results, he'd have had a harder time criticizing GR. -- perhaps that bit should be removed. --ScienceApologist 07:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you convey the idea differently? ABlake 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by omission of mentioning gravity? I don't know that it adds anything. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagined that to the average reader of this article, it would be important to basically describe the relative emphasis of PC on plasma over the other forces, and very briefly list what the others are since the average reader may not be familiar with them. I considered adding inflation and dark energy in addition to gravity. In my mind, this would provide a clear distinction between PC and BB. That was my line of thinking. It seems to me that leaving out gravity and the other forces may work, but I think including them does add clarity for the average reader. ABlake 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except PC is so vague that the relative importance of gravity is very difficult to characterize even at the "average reader" level. --ScienceApologist 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it vague in its ranking of relative importance between the forces? How is it hard to characterize? As I understand it, PC ranks the EM effects of cosmic plasmas first, followed by gravity at the local level. Am I missing something? ABlake 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are indeed missing something. The peer reviewed papers never go quite so far as to claim that gravity is ranked lower than EM effects. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do some digging and see what I can find. It's hard to believe that there isn't something in there that clarifies the relative importance question. ABlake 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I have recently read, I think I need to change my definition a bit. Alfven wrote in Cosmogeny as an Extrapolation of Magnetospheric Research, 1984, pg. 71, "Electric currents in 'void' interstellar space assist gravitation in collecting matter by the pinch effect, so that interstellar clouds are formed. These develop under the combined action of mechanical and electromagnetic forces." Perhaps Alfven didn't rank the importance of forces. He was just the first to include the effects of plasma in the equation when others ignored it. His quote indicates to me that gravitation and EM forces worked together. Based on that, I'll change my definition a bit. ABlake 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly accurate to say that in the 1960s astronomers/physicists didn't know about the extent of astrophysical plasmas. Spitzer, indeed, writes about ionized regions of the ISM in many of his seminal papers that date from that time. I have changed the wording accordingly. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm just about satisfied with the definition, but I think it should have a line in there about a belief in a universe without a beginning, i.e. Big Bang, since that is a distinctive characteristic of PC. What do you think? ABlake 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the sense from Alfven's writing that he thought that the Big Bang unfairly limited him in his desires to believe in an infinitely old universe, but he was willing to concede that a universe with an ab initio point might be a possibility. However, as it is the first cause issue of the Big Bang isn't exactly resolved since eternal inflation and other such models accomodate both the Big Bang and an eternal universe. What's interesting is that the skeptical arguments of Hoyle, Alfven, and others have in many ways become moot as speculative physics has delved into possibilities of time and space changing characteristics so drastically that talking about "a beginning" or "eternity" are meaningless. In any case, Alfven evinced a great disdain for this kind of speculative "scholasticism". I think he would say that what was important was that cosmological theories be based on observations and eschew any speculation of infinite regression. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, but expanding PC beyond its founder, Lerner and Peratt emphasize a universal age beyond measurement, without a detectable origin. I think that regardless of the first cause issue of the BB, one of the primary tenants of PC is a universe of indefinite age, and some sort of statement describing this view is important near the top of the article. ABlake 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Emphasize" is a bit of stretch. Perhaps, "mention" would be a more appropriate characterization. The universal, indefinite age does not seem to be listed as a primary point in Peratt's or Lerner's book, except with respect to the philosophical critique Alfven gave. However, skepticism in an idea doesn't mean rejection, even though the title of Lerner's book is provactively positioned as a pretty clear "rejection", for example. --ScienceApologist 16:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "assume" or "believe". Whether they pound the pulpit over it or not, it is mentioned because it is assumed and believed, and it is a distinctive belief compared to the scientific consensus. ABlake 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Connection to Velikovsky
I just noticed that SIS has invited Peratt to speak on his ideas. Does this make Peratt a Velikovskian? --ScienceApologist 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On further research, I believe that his connections may run shallow. It looks like he has been invited and has spoken at other catastrophist/Velikovsky conventions, but there is no indication that he actually believes Velikovsky pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Limited Discussion
The last line of the second paragraph states, "While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional cosmology community." It seems to me that this line disregards any papers, conferences, and popular articles that have been written in the last 15 years, so I think it needs some tweeking. Is there a better way we can say that PC is generally ignored, even though its advocates continue to generate debate and interest? ABlake 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From a verifiability standpoint, plasma cosmology is no longer seriously discussed in scientific circles. This is fairly well-shown in the article. The "papers, conferences, and popular articles" would have to rise to a level of notability indicated on, for example, WP:SCI in order for the generation of "debate and interest" to be notable enough to modify this wording. --ScienceApologist 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do some more digging to see if anything fits the criteria for notability. ABlake 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We also need a reliable source suggesting that "advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional cosmology community"
 * The statement also fails the weasel words guidelines; "mostly" is subjective. Does "ignored" mean that they are familiar with Plasma Cosmology, and have chosen to ignore it, or are they ignorant of the subject, which is not the same thing? --Iantresman 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statement
"Advocates of plasma cosmology emphasize the importance of accounting for the effects of astrophysical plasmas because over 99% of matter in the universe is found in a charged state, and is thus theoretically susceptible to large scale electromagnetic forces."

This was removed from the article because of two reasons:


 * It is not true that "over 99% of matter in the universe is found in a charged state". Most matter has a cross-section with photons so small that "charge" as a source or sink for electric and magnetic fields is an impossibility.


 * That doesn't even make sense... If you want to bash loony-toons, at least get your facts straight first.


 * Maybe it wasn't written as eloquently as possible, but the point still stands, 99% is not the fraction of the matter in the universe that is "charged". --ScienceApologist 08:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if this were true "theoretically susceptible" to "large scale electromagnetic forces" is an unqualified and arbitrary description that also defies verifiability. Either plasma is susceptible or it isn't. Either the electromagnetic forces exist or they do not (the "scale" being quite irrelevant).

--ScienceApologist 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not true that over 99% of the known matter in the universe is in a plasma state? I could have sworn I had read that on various occasions. And you're right, plasma is either susceptible to EM forces or it isn't. I'm no plasma physicist, but I'm pretty sure that it is. ABlake 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With that said, I just want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to promote PC. I really don't care. At the end of the day, it makes no difference in my life whether the universe began with a bang or not. I don't care. However, it does matter to me that articles in Wikipedia are fair and accurate, just on moral grounds. ABlake 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this on the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory site (http://www.llnl.gov/str/November05/Nilsen.html)
 * "NEARLY all the matter encountered on Earth is either a solid, liquid, or gas. Yet plasma—the fourth state of matter—comprises more than 99 percent of the visible universe."
 * I assume LLNL is a reliable source? ABlake 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, ABlake. The LLNL statement is okay.  The statement ScienceApologist removed has at least two problems.  i) It lacks the qualification "visible". According to modern theories, most matter in the universe is "dark matter" which is not visible, although it gravitates.  ii) A gas can be a plasma without every particle in it being ionized. For example, most hydrogen atoms at 5800 K, the approximate temperature of the "surface of the sun" (photosphere) are not ionized.  So being part of a plasma is not really the same as being "in a charged state".Cardamon 08:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the feedback. How's this then, "Advocates of plasma cosmology emphasize the importance of accounting for the effects of astrophysical plasmas because over 99% of visible matter in the universe is found in a plasma state, and is thus theoretically susceptible to influence by the large scale electromagnetic forces." Does that take care of the factual problems? ABlake 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's another issue. Is this an enumeration of visible matter by mass, number of atoms, filling factor, or what? Because simply saying 99% without qualification is potentially very misleading (intercluster gas may be the most numerous by volume, but there are hardly any atoms there at all). --ScienceApologist 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Potentially very misleading" - How is that misleading? How does that negate the verifiable quote? How would that influence the point that PC is based on that assumption? My opinion is that it doesn't. If there is a problem with the qualification of the 99%, LLNL would be the place to voice your concerns, not with me. I think I've sufficiently addressed the concerns and adjusted the original statement to accurately describe the belief. ABlake 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I don't know if he was referring to mass, number of atoms, or filling factor. ABlake 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we haven't described the belief at all. I have seen the 99% figure bandied about a lot, but it is never dealt with in a mechanistic fashion beyond Alfven's suggestions about interplanetary plasma (hardly a cosmological claim) and Eric Lerner's dubious attempt on this page to claim that the magnetic field energy density was comparable to the gravitational field energy density. If you find an actual source that explains what the plasma cosmology advocates are claiming in particular, let's go. But vague assertions shouldn't be included unqualified. --ScienceApologist 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have long assumed people who make this statement (which is something of an old chestnut) mean "by mass". For example,  this pdf of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory explicitly says "by mass".  Much of this mass of plasma is contained in stars, rather than as clouds of plasma.   Moving onto the second half of your proposed statement, any ordinary matter can be influenced by electric fields if it has a net electric charge, or by magnetic fields if it has a magnetic field of its own.  The extent of that influence of course depends on the situation, and need not amount to much.  Conversely, plasmas can be close to electrically neutral, or without large magnetic fields, and thus not all that amenable to influence by large scale, but possibly weak, electromagnetic fields. (For a short discussion of how much (or little) the orbit of the sun around the galaxy is affected by external electric or magnetic fields see here.) My point is that, assuming that the claim that 99% of the mass of visible matter is plasma is correct, it is hard to draw much more of a conclusion from it than "plasma is important because there is a lot of it". Cardamon 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two points that need to be resolved before the statement would be included, from what you are saying. First, there needs to be a verifiable quote from a PC advocate that makes the claim as stated, specifically Alfven, Peratt, or Lerner at this point. Second, an explanation of the mechanism on the large scale that accounts for electrically neutral plasmas. Is that close? Right now it is a qualitative statement, without a verifiable quote or quantification. I can see how that would be problematic to include. ABlake 11:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state... "
 * "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."
 * "..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"
 * "plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"
 * "It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"
 * "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."
 * "The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"
 * ".. in the universe as a whole, plasma is considered the most abundant state of matter, probably accounting for more than 99% of its total mass"
 * "It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"
 * "It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"
 * "about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"
 * ""99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center"
 * "How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there." --Iantresman 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What point are you trying to make here, Ian? Are you suggesting that we include a statement along the lines of "Takashi Fujimoto, in his book on spectroscopy, claims that 'It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma'."? I am only being partly facetious. Only the last reference comes close to addressing the question of what is behind this statement, no matter how often it is bandied around. Just because a lot of people make mushy statements about the amount of plasma in the universe doesn't mean that such a statement would improve this article. And if you look carefully at the last statement, it does not say that "99% of the Universe is in a plasma state", it only explains why other people make that claim. I get the impression that the author would rather say that 95% of the mass of the universe is non-baryonic. --Art Carlson 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to demonstrate is that there are many sources which describe the universe as containing 99%+ plasma, and these examples provide us with enough information to be able to phrase such a description. For example:
 * "It has often been said that over 99% of the Universe in the in the plasma state (excluding any dark matter there might be). For example, 99% of the mass of our Solar System is in the Sun which is a fully ionized plasma. And intergalactic space the greatest volume of the universe, and containing the intergalactic medium, is thought to be predominantly plasma. Consequently proponents of the Plasma Universe consider the properties of plasma to be fundamental in understanding the formation and evolution of the Universe, galaxies, solar systems and stars."
 * Is the Universe really 99% plasma? That's a question we can't answer, just as we don't know if there really is dark matter. But we do know that some people say that the universe is 99% plasma, and others that says there is 22% dark matter and 74% dark energy. --Iantresman 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your new phrasing seems to deal with most of the reservations raised above. There might still be a question of the exact and verifiable connection to plasma cosmology, but it should at least not be too hard to show that plasma cosmology advocates say such things. The bit about the solar systems and stars might have to go since that is in no way distinctive to plasma cosmology. We might consider just putting a concise statement in the main text and go into the exact meaning and assumptions in a footnote. --Art Carlson 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The new phrasing is problematic. For example, the sun is not a "fully ionized plasma" as there are obviously ions in the sun which are not fully ionized (otherwise there would be no lines at all!) Then there is an appeal to filling factor as an argument for why plasma is important, but there is no rationale for what this has to do with plasma cosmology. The only thing I agree with is that it is irrelevant whether the universe "really is" 99% plasma, but I still don't see an answer to my objections regarding this phrasing I made initially. I'm simply waiting for a mechanistic argument to describe the "importance" of plasma's ubiquity to plasma cosmology (i.e., what is it about the ubiquity that makes plasma cosmology proponents skeptical of mainstream cosmology?) --ScienceApologist 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Plasma cosmologists note the prevalence and importance of cosmic plasma in numerous articles, for example:
 * "One of the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfven, 1950). This prediction followed from the fact that volumewise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. When the plasma is energetic, it is generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments." Peratt, A. L., Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation, Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 97-107
 * "Independent of the introduction of the general theory of relativity into the cosmological discussion, there was another drastic change in our approach to cosmical physics, namely, the realization of the importance of electrodynamic effects to the motion of dispersed media. Because the ratio of Coulomb attraction to Newtonian attraction between elementary particles is electromagnetic effects are decisive to the dynamics in all cases when the number of positive charges are not almost exactly compensated by the same number of negative charges. This is the case for all massive celestial bodies down to grains of the size of the order of microns, but very seldom for the diffuse media in interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space. In fact, hydromagnetic and plasma phenomena dominate most of those regions which (by volume) constitute more than 99.999 . . . percent of the universe." Alfven, H., Cosmology - Myth or science?, ournal of Astrophysics and Astronomy (ISSN 0250-6335), vol. 5, March 1984, p. 79-98
 * Plasma cosmologists also apply the "Plasma Universe" to the Solar System and Stars, so it would be wrong to exclude information just because it is not "distinctive to plasma cosmology". After all, we wouldn't exclude information from the Big Bang because it includes features that are also common to non-standard cosmologies; we discuss theories in their entirety.
 * For all intents and purposes, the Sun (and stars) are a fully ionized plasma, or "completely ionized". However, I'm sure you can provide the appropriate phrasing to indicate that it is nearly completely ionized.
 * Plasma cosmologists say that plasma is important in the universe BECAUSE some say that the universe is 99% plasma; that is the rationale. You don't have to agree with it. If the universe contains 25% dark matter, then I'd imagine that it's effect would also be considered important. I don't have to agree with it, buy I'm sure it's verifiable.
 * Note that the statement is based on what is verifiable, not on what each of us considers the truth. --Iantresman 14:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So here is the problem, we already mention in the article that plasma cosmology advocates use astrophysical plasma as a basis for their arguments. The 99% number does not play a numerical role in any of their arguments. I haven't seen a plasma cosmology proponent use 99% in any meaningful way that, say, 80% or 50% or even 4% (if you go by Lambda-CDM) couldn't also follow the same argument. That's what I mean when I say we need a mechanism. The question we should ask is: how does proposed text help the reader understand a subject? The numerical value (whatever it is) has not yet been shown to have any mechanistic significance for plasma cosmology. It is the vague ubiquity of plasma -- described already by means of linking to astrophysical plasma -- that plasma cosmology advocates rely on. It is not that it is 99% of the components of the universe. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the 99% plays no numerical role, it is purely descriptive. The plasma cosmologists are saying (a) the universe is mainly plasma, hence plasma must be important (b) some say that 99% of the universe is plasma, which helps qualify what is meant by "mainly".
 * Either way, both Alfven and Peratt use the figure (as do many others above), and that is verifiable, and that is what we should say. --Iantresman 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that we agree that 99% is purely descriptive. Now we have to justify its inclusion in the article. A good argument for including it should not be "Peratt and Alfven said it". Peratt and Alfven have verifiably said a lot of things, if we included eveything they ever said, this article would be way too long. What we need to do is include points that have some editorial reason beyond verifiability. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it absolutely MUST appear in Wikipedia. Verifiability is necessary but not suficient criteria for inclusion. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is significant that Alfven refers to the volume and regions of plasma, not (like Peratt) the mass. Alfven knows - and says - that electromagnetic effects are less important than gravity for everything from stars down to dust. If we talk about the fraction of plasma that is diffuse, I think the number is something like 50%. Should we read between the lines of Alfven and say that electromagnetic effects could be more important than gravity for half of the baryonic matter in the universe? In any case, Alfven seems to be saying that electromagnetic effects are relatively unimportant for most of the visible matter in the universe (i.e. stars). (I suspect this contribution will not prove very helpful for developing a consensus. I'll try to restrain myself better in the future.) --Art Carlson 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The editorial reason for including that 99% of the universe is plasma, is that it is such a fundamentally basic description. If the universe was "only" 20% plasma, then I can see readers wondering why plasma is said to be so important. That 99% of the universe is plasma says it very simply. Anybody can see the significance of a plasma in a universe that is 99% plasma. Sometimes the obvious needs stating.
 * I think that the Peratt quote also mentions 99.999% plasma volumewise. I'm not sure about reading between the lines, but I'm sure we can find addition citations clarifying the issue. --Iantresman 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That "simplicity" may be the problem here. When the casual reader sees "99% plasma", he easily concludes that electromagnetic effects must be 99% important. He forgets that plasmas have mass, so gravitational effects could still dominate. --Art Carlson 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Art. Insinuations about what is important if the universe is X% plasma is a definite issue. If the reason to include the number really is "readers will not wonder why plasma is so important if the number is 99%", then the text is basically spoonfeeding the reader. --ScienceApologist 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We say the universe is 99% plasma because it is factually actual. As to how it is interpreted, it could be either way... people who are not knowledgeable about plasmas will not know that electromagnetic forces influence them at all. That is equally misleading.
 * So the simple solution is to clarify the issue. Plasma cosmologists say that electromagnetic forces are more important than gravity... that is verifiable, and illustrated by the quote from Alfvén and Fälthammar in reference number 5. It is even tells us by how much.
 * If the mainstream disagrees, by all means provide a counter-example and reference. --Iantresman 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph from "Comparison to mainstream cosmology"
"Proponents of the plasma cosmology model counter that dark matter is itself famously un-observed, and thus is simply an accounting feature of mainstream cosmology models. Plasma cosmology can explain the universe without requiring 98% of it to be invisible therefore it is frankly within the realm of science and not philosophy .  At a minimum, it can be directly compared against the prevailing accepted theory as a way to skeptically test it.  Currently gravitational lensing surveys have not uncovered enough inferred dark matter sufficient to support mainstream cosmology models.  Given this there is a strong basis to consider alternatives which need not appeal to the invisible - black holes, dark matter, dark energy."

I have removed the above paragraph from the "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" section of the plasma cosmology article, because I agree with "71.57.90.96" that it has problems. First, and easiest to fix, the wrong tag was used. (User:Jonathanischoice may have meant to use the  tag.)  The removed paragraph is argumentative in tone, rather than being encyclopedic. It contains rhetoric, and makes claims that should be referenced, but aren't. It uses weasel words (" Proponents of the plasma cosmology model counter... "). It suggests, without actually saying so, that mainstream cosmology is not a science, which looks to me like a violation of NPOV. It invites the reader to draw the false conclusion that, for example, not being able to see black holes directly means that evidence for existence of black holes can not be observed, when the behavior of matter around them can be extremely observable. (Many entities in science such as, for example, electrons, ions, and antiparticles are not directly observed. Feynman once pointed out that the "inside of a brick" cannot be observed by the naked eye since, even if you break the brick in half, whatever new parts of the brick you see will now be on the outside.) Astronomers can also see the clumpings they attribute to dark matter. The final sentence is ungrammatical. Cardamon 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statements
--Iantresman 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the misleading statements included by 216.125.49.252 om the grounds there are papers that includes evidence that contract them.
 * 216.125.49.252 may personally question their reliability of the sources, but they are peer reviewed, unless there is any other reliable sources that question them.
 * Indeed to suggest that there is "no actual evidence to support any of these claims" is to ignore every paper on the subject, eg.
 * Additionally, the statement fail NPOV "Fairness of tone".


 * The "papers" in question do not contradict the statements. They may or may not provide an alternative "interpretation", but as it is they are not vetted as reliable sources per the guidelines outlined in WP:SCI and WP:FRINGE.
 * Peer review is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for reliability. There exist peer reviewed articles which are not reliable. These articles may or may not fall under that category. Simple removing statements because they appear to an editor to be contradicted by a paper is not sufficient rationale for an editorial removal of a sentence.
 * No paper on the subject offers any "evidence" for such claims. Instead what is offered is a framework interpretation. Plasma cosmology advocates are not observational cosmologists and so they cannot offer any evidence to support their claims -- only interpretations.
 * The tone seems perfectly fair to this editor. Perhaps you should be more convincing in your arguments.

As it is, Ian Tresman was banned from editting this article once before, so he should tread lightly.

--216.125.49.252 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian should indeed tread lisghtly. So should you.  I suggest you achieve agreement on this Talk page before making any further edits to the article.  Guy (Help!) 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear that there is no agreement we can possibly acheive since Ian's contributions are not based on a rigorous analysis of evidence. --216.125.49.252 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments come across a condescending:
 * You can't possible know the level of analysis of the evidence I make, nor have requested from others, unless you're a mind-reader.
 * The implication that your analysis is "rigorous" is unsubstantiated.
 * The suggestion that "rigorous analysis" implies an automatic "correct interpretation" is wrong.
 * The suggestion that only observational cosmologists can offer evidence, I must assume is a comment that was not intended to be serious.
 * And why don't you do us all a favour, and log-in. --Iantresman 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you haven't been very successful in editting at Wikipedia in regards to these sorts of articles in the past and your arguments continue to be very poorly made. Yes, I consider my analysis better than yours. Yes, it seems that the bulk of the sources would allign themselves to my perspective and criticize yours. I'm sorry you're on the out-and-out in terms of this discussion, but there just isn't anything like a consistent justification for your editorial style or your attempts to regulate content in this article. As was shown in the evidence presented in the last arbcomm case, there are edits and content designs you have made at Wikipedia which are very problematic, and I would describe these problems as rising to the level of lacking rigor and being incorrect. I'll also note that there is no requirement at Wikipedia for any person to log-in before they edit. --216.125.49.252 14:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but my success at editing at Wikipedia has been good, as can be seen my the number of articles I have contributed to.
 * However, the only articles I have problems editing involve you, and only you, and no other editor.
 * Let me point out that in your ArbCom "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular" you provided NOT ONE example of an inappropriate edit of mine. The lack of rigour does not appear to mine. --Iantresman 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When the mainstream is all there is
''Research in these issues is ongoing, but plasma processes are not considered in mainstream theoretical modeling to play a signifcant role in structure or galaxy formation. ''

Is the adjective "mainstream" appropriate? Can Peratt's discounted models be considered as an example of an alternative "model"? When is it too pandering to constantly be calling things "mainstream" when in reality the mainstream is all there is in this discipline? --216.125.49.252 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's appropriate because it is accurate, and WP:NPOV tells us to attribute biased statements. --Iantresman 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've made any claim to appropriateness. This is not a biased statement at all. It is a bald statement of fact known to anyone who works within the modeling community or who reads the papers. Since this isn't biased or controversial, it seems clear that the "attribution" is meant to spoonfeed the reader. --216.125.49.252 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When the sole readership of Wikipedia is "anyone who works within the modeling community" I will accept your point. Until then we'll attribute it to "the modelling community" as you suggest --Iantresman 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already done by stating "plasma processes are not considered in theoretical modeling to play a significant role..." --71.57.90.96 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations required

 * I've requested citations for a number of statements to which I don't know the answers myself. It shouldn't be too difficult for the authors to substantiate them.
 * I recognize that some statement are written as negatives that technically cannot be verified; in which case they should be rewritten so that they can be verified. --Iantresman 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the requests are fine. Some are obviously meant to be tendentious. I removed the tendentious ones. --216.125.49.252 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the tags. You may not be familiar with Wiki policy, but you should assume good faith. None of them are meant as tendentious, and they belong with each fact, not each sentence... how else would an edit know what the tag applies to? --Iantresman 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fact-tag bombing as you have done is a tactic meant to convey the sense that certain statements are dubious when in fact they are not. Asking for citations is fine. Asking for citations to the point of cluttering the article with citation needed superscripts is tendentious. Such tactics will be resisted. --216.125.49.252 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it is now difficult to identify which statements require verification with a reliable source, I summarise them below. Please note that it is not up to other editors to provide contradictory evidence, it is up to the original editor to verify the statements made, or re-word them and provide verification. Please do not break up the list: --Iantresman 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * His most famous proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ionized matter and anti-matter in the form of so-called ambiplasma  [most famous?}
 * Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus
 * Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career attempting to characterize astrophysical plasma for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. [I don't think he earned his Nobel prize for "attempting to characterize astrophysical plasma"]
 * However, Alfvén came to this conclusion by simply extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales [I can find nothing to suggest it was just this simply]
 * without providing any workable mathematical models
 * demonstrating predictions to account for distant observations, such as redshift, SN1 data, etc. [where's the requirement to predict redshift or SN1 data?]
 * hence, his theories have been for the most part dismissed as philosophical beliefs
 * with no sound basis in science.
 * many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations. However, there remains no direct observational evidence
 * electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on the largest scales. [I believe he said they were important where there is plasma, but not specifically on the largest scales]

Most famous proposal

 * An obituary mentions that his most well-known discovery is what we now call Alfvén waves (p.260), and "another fundamental contribution [was] the guiding centre approximation --Iantresman 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no mention of ambiplasma. --Iantresman 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you happy if we write "cosmological proposal"? --Art Carlson 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source for that. I think there are other "cosmic plasmas" matters for which he is better well-known for, but I don't have a source for them either. The obituary mentions MHD and its application to astrophysics.
 * I am yet to find any biographical information that mentions ambiplasma, suggesting that it is far from his most famous proposal, cosmic or otherwise. Nothing is mentioned in the S9 Biography, the obituary in Earth in Space, in the Encyclopædia Britannica short biography, his Nobel Prize biography.
 * It seems to me that this statement should be removed, and replaced by his successful predictions in astrophysics which are numerous, relevant and verifiable. --Iantresman 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is easily verified in any standard cosmology text. Take Narlikar's text, for example. Alfven's most famous cosmological proposal is the one most often mentioned and it is plasma cosmology/ambiplasma. --71.57.90.96 07:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should we, in the lead paragraph of an article on cosmology, remove a statement on Alfven's ideas on cosmology and replace it with a statement on his ideas on astrophysics? --Art Carlson 08:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

contradicts the current consensus
What are you objecting to here, Ian? Do we need to cite where PC rejects the Big Bang? --Art Carlson 17:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it give the impression that they are wholly mutually exclusive, whereas the article already acknowledges that "plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena". In other words, it does not wholly contradict.
 * And to be pedantic, plasma cosmology does not contradict, certain observations or interpretations mights. --Iantresman 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence for this way of viewing what pc is. When the major corpus of pc thought comes from such articles as "Two worlds system revisited" and "The Big Bang didn't happen", it's pretty obvious pc contradicts current consensus. PC is not simply "plasma physics", it's using certain plasma physics suggestions to contradict the standard paradigm. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it please. --71.57.90.96 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So the problem is not verifiability but clarity? I think we clearly state which consensus is contradicted by plasma cosmology, but I'm certainly willing to consider a formulation you think gives a more accurate impression. --Art Carlson 08:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

.. attempting to characterize
Again, where do you see a problem? Isn't his work on astrophysical plasmas closely related to or identical with his work on magnetohydrodynamics? If you think the statement is false, could you suggest a formulation you think is more accurate? If you think the statement is OK but just needs better documentation, could you suggest the sort of citation you have in mind? --Art Carlson 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't his development of MHD apply to all plasmas rather than just astrophysical plasmaa? The Nobel Foundation noted his prize was awarded for "for fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics" . Sure this was also applied to cosmic plasma. I would suggest:
 * "Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career characterizing plasmas for which his development of MHD resulted in him being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970."
 * I also object to the wording "attempting to characterize" as it could imply he never did, or wasn't successful. Very few models are 100% accurate. --Iantresman 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MHD conditions are usually more prevalent in astrophysical conditions rather than terrestrial conditions for reasons stemming from plasma densities. As Alfven rightly pointed out in his lecture, the characterization of such plasmas is approximate: MHD is only good for certain regimes. --71.57.90.96 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't much care either way (although I would not lightly make the statement that MHD is less important in terrestrial plasmas). How about this: Hannes Alfvén was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for his studies of plasmas, including [or especially] astrophysical plasmas. --Art Carlson 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, we can remove the mention of astrophysical plasmas if that would satisfy. MHD certainly has terrestrial applications, and I would not say that it is "less important" in terrestrial conditions, only that its astrophysical implications are more promininent as the Ohmic nature of the conductivity of terrestrial plasmas is often violated since densities are so much higher. --71.57.90.96 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

simply extrapolating plasma phenomena

 * Alfvén didn't just "simply" extrapolate, and to suggest this is the only criteria requires a citation or rewording. For example, he makes it clear that in situ measurements of the magnetosphere corroborate (direct observation evidence) are also considered. See "Model of the plasma universe" (1986) --Iantresman 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alfvén also says in the same paper that
 * "It is assumed that the basic properties of a plasma are the same everywhere. When the knowledge resulting from laboratory and magnetospheric research is combined with direct observations of interstellar and intergalactic plasma phenomena, we can predict that a new era in astrophysics is beginning, largely based on the plasma universe model."


 * I contend that this is more that "simple" extrapolation, and this quote probably deserves replacing the existing simplified statement. --Iantresman 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In comparison to the way that most extrapolations of GR are done in, for example, Weinberg's text, the scaling arguments of Alfven function as simple extrapolations rather than rigorous derivations. This is not just a matter of wording or a POV, it is a verifiable difference between the rigor level of pc arguments and standard cosmology arguments. --71.57.90.96 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

workable mathematical models
The easiest way out of this would be for you to cite such a "workable mathematical model". Failing that, what sort of citation would you like to see here, Ian? --Art Carlson 09:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not up to me to provide a counter-example; I don't claim to know the subject well enough to do so. But it is up to the editor who provided the statement to either verify it, such as a quote in a peer reviewed journal that puts this forward as a criticism. --Iantresman 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian has provided nothing in the way of what he would accept as a citation. He just likes Wikilawyering. --71.57.90.96 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

distant observations
Can't follow you on this one either, Ian. As you asking for a citation that Alfven did not provide models of redshift and SN1s, or are you suggesting he didn't, but it isn't relevant? --Art Carlson 09:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The text says he "Alfvén came to this conclusion by simply extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales without providing any workable mathematical models demonstrating predictions to account for distant observations, such as redshift, SN1 data,"
 * I'd like to know how the editor of this statement knows that Alfvén did not provide such workable mathematical models.
 * I've read about 20% of all that Alfvén published, and do not know what is in the other 80%. So I'd like the editor to verify this statement. --Iantresman 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He plainly didn't. One can search all of Alfven's work at a respectable reference library and he doesn't mention SN1 distant measurements in any of his work. --216.125.49.252 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that argument does not conform to WP:A. Who says Alfvén did not provide a workable mathematical models? Or that his conclusion was due to a simple extrapolation? Or that redshift and SN1 data are relevant to Alfvén's cosmology? --Iantresman 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alfven himself didn't provide any working mathematical models and as cosmology is defined through texts on the subject, redshift-distance relations are applicable. If you think that this rationale doesn't conform to WP:A, I would encourage you to seek out third opinions on the matter, because it is obvious that other editors disagree with you. --71.57.90.96 13:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WHO says that Alfven himself didn't provide any working mathematical models. Surely you're not suggesting that YOU are the source?
 * Which other editors disagree with me, that your statement does not require attribution per WP:A ? --Iantresman 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alfven himself didn't provide the mathematical models, so it was Alfven who said it. He is the sources. --14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents
Would you like to cite such evidence, Ian? If not, how should we document the lack of evidence? --Art Carlson 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, WP:A tells us that "the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." --Iantresman 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is pretty clear to me that this is a plain fact that can be referenced to any reference library. I'm willing to listen to any contention that there is a reliable citation that contradicts this. --71.57.90.96 14:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

largest scales

 * The "cosmic" aspect to Alfven's proposals means that he's dealing with plasma's importance on the largest scales. The largest scales are what is important to cosmology by definition. --71.57.90.96 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contributions
Thanks 71.57.90.96 for your contributions to plasma-universe.com --Iantresman 20:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, (71.57.90.96) why is someone from your IP address spamming my e-mail [details removed to avoid copycat attacks Mgmirkin 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)] on plasma-universe.com wiki and now on wikipedia.com (that's not cool)? To my knowledge I don't know you, nor why exactly I've engendered your ire, since we've never to my knowledge/recollection had dealings. I don't know why you've stalked me to Wikipedia from that other forum (honestly I don't frequent Wikipedia much anymore due to the endless bickering and revert wars some folks like to engage in). If you have a grievance against that forum or any users there, don't take them out on me (or anyone else, really; it's just rude to vandalize). Please refrain from any further harassment. Wikipedia has already been notified of the malfeasance, and will hopefully issue a general warning (if possible for an anonymous IP; if any moderators are listening, I suggest they watch 71.57.90.96 carefully for any other complaints). Apologies for listing this irritation / request here, but there seems to be no other way of relaying a message to you, since you are *anonymous*. Apologies if this is a breach of WP protocols. I'd just prefer the harassment to stop. Thank you. Also, if this is a DIFFERENT IP 71.57.90.96 than the one who's been harassing me, apologies again. However, as I recall, IP addresses are pretty specific, so I doubt that's the case. Again, less harassment, please (trying to be civil about this). Thank you. That will be all. Mgmirkin 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum, further information/discussion shows that this IP address may either be composomised by another user, or this address may be used by a proxy server, or on a shared machine, so more than one user may have access to it. If this is the case, then apologies if these comments did not reach the correct person. In either case, I HOPE the spamming will stop, as I prefer not to be involved in whatever tiff someone may have with Ian. Hopefully any issues can be worked out peaceably without further spam/hack attempts... And, again, apologies for off-topic communications on this talk page. Hard to track down anonymous IP users. Mgmirkin 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman misunderstands WP:A
and as such, I believe it is our duty to proceed without the baiting that is accompanying his remarks. --71.57.90.96 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is your duty to discuss the matter, rather than steam-roller unilaterally with editing.
 * WP:A is clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, [..] Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (my emphasis)
 * Your statement is challenged, and the onus is on you to provide an attribution. --Iantresman 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion has happened. No new information has been offered. The attributions are provided. I think we're done here. --71.57.90.96 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, you have presented no information nor attributions to support the following statements:
 * "Alfvén came to this conclusion by simply extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales.." (simply ?)
 * ".. without providing any workable mathematical models demonstrating predictions to account for distant observations, such as redshift, SN1 data, etc."
 * "his theories have been for the most part dismissed as philosophical beliefs"


 * Since I'm here, 71.57.90.96, I might as well ask the silly WP newbie question: Who said the above and in what article or context. Can you cite a source for this statement or is it purely opinion of the various editors who have tainted the page, ergo falling under Original Research (or at least not satisfying WP:verifiability), and requiring removal or rewording to somethig mutually agreed upon by parties in contention Mgmirkin 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "with no sound basis in science."


 * Again, has someone reputable published a peer reviewed article saying that Alfven's science was "bad?" If so, please cite. Shouldn't be hard, and in the process of writing Big Bang-centric articles, someone must have come across Alfven's work and debunked it or said it was based on faulty premises. Ian simply asks for citation. Not an unreasonable request if it's such a contentious issue. IF specific citations are lacking, perhaps reword to something agreeable to all parties. Long story short, WP is about verifiable statements, not editors' opinions. Opinion is generally considered OR by my understanding of the rules (unless they've changed significantly in the last 6 mos), whereas quotes from reputable sources are considered verifiable/verified. That said, I don't want to get in the middle of a war I didn't start. So, 71.57.90.96, as mentioned in the prior section, please don't harass me anymore with spamming password hack attempts here or elsewhere, etc. Let's all try to be reasonable and work through issues (cite sources for contentious statements or remove them) rather than sniping back and forth, which never leads to resolution, just frayed tempers and revert wars, etc. And try to have a good day. Mgmirkin 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena do not include plasma current mechanisms" --Iantresman 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Simply" is a common term in reporting on mathematical physics. It is usually looked at positively. Get an outside opinion on that one, I don't care at all.
 * Just because you don't like the fact that Alfven's work has been evaluated poorly doesn't mean that it isn't okay to report that in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to make you feel good.
 * --71.57.90.96 15:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If "simply" is that common, you should easily be able to find an attribution.
 * I have no problem reporting criticism of Alfvén's work... as long as you have a citation. My problem is your evaluation of Alfvén's work, having already labelled it "pseudoscience" without foundation. --Iantresman 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not required to find an attribution for every bit of text that is descriptive. You also have no evidence that what is written in this article is representative of "my" evaluation of Alfven's work. If you cannot provide any attributions yourself, you are basically positioning yourself in an extremely ironical situation. --71.57.90.96 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, it is not required to find an attribution for every bit of descriptive text. But it is required to find attribution for text that is disputed. And I am disputing it.
 * It is your evaluation until you can provide an attribution.
 * I will provide an attribution for any of my text that is disputed. --Iantresman 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't count anything you include here as a dispute. You are a disruptive editor. End of story.

--71.57.90.96 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not included anything in the article, so there is nothing of mine to dispute.
 * It is quite reasonable to request attribution for statements, indeed, it is core policy in Wikipedia (see WP:A)
 * And now you have fallen back to attacking me.
 * Both these points see counter to your ArbCom ruling,, and do not help in us improving the article. --Iantresman 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)