User:Ionized

I studied physics at Michigan Technological University (to be clear I DNF due to personal/medical/financial reasons.) Before college I was a professional electronic technician for 4 years (using skills I learned throughout my childhood.)  I was raised by a published anthropologist/archeologist/attorney who taught me much about the scientific method and cultural differences, among other things.

I have a special interest in plasma physics and its relation to cosmology as well. The main reason I enrolled for a degree is due to my curiosity about plasma physics, and my observation over the years of what Hannes Alfven refered to as an oscillation between Prophetic cosmologies and Actualistic cosmologies. Initially I was surprised that plasma was only barely 'mentioned' within my curriculum. Many years have passed and I now better understand the battle I am up against.

In most of the acedemic world, Plasma cosmology does not exist. Ive had to give seminars to my professors and fellow students to teach them about it. I found, amazingly, that under the proper treatment, SOME educated physicists and astrophysicists actually find the field quite interesting and valid.

I plan to contribute to the Plasma cosmology article the things I have learned. I plan also to contribute to other articles related to plasma and the people who have developed the field.

I find Wikipedia to be a fantastic platform and thank its founders and maintainers for the chance to contribute knowledge.

Robert C. Lewis

-

Im stopping now. Maybe if I get an urge to continuosly defend Plasma Cosmology from the attacks of the standard community, I will come back to contributing to the article. But for now, I can not continue putting up with the removal of large chunks of relevant article. They dont "appear" relevant to the people that remove them because they are not the ones that did the research and dont truly have an understanding of the vast connections between different research in the field. If we would be allowed to write a proper article, the connections between all of the information would be more easily seen. However, the constant intrusion into the article from those that dont even research the field, is absurd, and it has made me decide to no longer contribute. My thanks to Reddi for starting the article in the first place, and I wish you luck Reddi. Ill be back in the summer maybe, after I finish this semester of difficult upper level physics classes. Ionized 03:34, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

note: even when valid resources from peer-reviewed journals where cited. I was not speaking about original research here, I was speaking about the removal of cited material. -Ionized 23:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

-

how could i resist the temptation to correct errors.. -Ionized 04:44, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

-

What a blast from the past visiting this place has been! Out of curiosity I took that 'what is my type' quiz. Categorization necessarily leaves things out. -Ionized 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC) p.s., before taking this assessment, I had never before heard the term Cultural_Creative. I find parts of the description to be very apt, others not so apt, as would be the case with any classification. -Ionized 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

94%     Postmodernist      81%      Idealist      81%      Existentialist      75%      Materialist      75%      Romanticist      56%      Modernist      56%      Fundamentalist      44%       http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320