User talk:Ionized

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 04:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) - Hi, Ionized. Re our chat a few days back on Talk:Big Bang: I thought I'd let you know that my uni library turned out to have a copy of Arp's Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies so I've taken it out with a view to eventually reading it in full and using it (along with his website and various other sources) as the basis of an article or articles on Arp and his theories. Hope your studies are going well, but if they're not keeping you too busy it'd be nice to have someone pro-Arp around to help keep me NPOV ... What do you think would be best? A single "Halton Arp" article covering the whole lot, or "Halton Arp" being biographical and other articles about the science bits? --Bth 10:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS By the way, based on the couple of chapters I've read so far, Arp does seem to reject superluminal jets as being inherently ridiculous, even though they're a natural consequence of near-c motion close to the line of sight. And some of his probability calculations do seem more than a little odd, though I need to run the numbers myself to check my suspicions.


 * Yes, his probabilities can sometimes come from out of no-where it seems, I don't focus on them too much myself. I am glad you are reading him, most of the people that have addressed me about this reject the idea that they too could simply pick up his books and actually learn, so its good to see you taking the initiative.  I think maybe a single article on Arp would suffice, with detailed sections.  If the sections get too big, then we either spawn new article, or add  to what has already been said by me on the non-standard cosmology and the plasma cosmology pages.  If you start it out, I would be happy to contribute.  The Arp article should not have an NPOV problem at all, since it would be about his ideas and life, hence they are his points of view, which should be fine in an article about him.  If the BB proponents come in and start erasing things, then wars start.  It has already happened once, in fact Arp is not discussed on the Plasma cosmology page because someone else failed to understand the connections and moved everything I had said to Non-standard cosm.  This, in the end, turned out to be better anyhow, but I still need to go in and reconnect things in the Plasma page.  This page was in utter ruin when I found it last year.  It is still a mess, and I plan on revamping it this summer.  I have attempted to indicate some of what Arp thinks on the Non-standard cosmology page and talk page.  But it was in the midst of severe battles with the BB proponents over whether or not it is "encyclopedic" or what-not, hence it is far from complete.  You could learn a great deal about Arp by reading my posts on the Non-standard cosmology page (inlcuding the Talk pages) and the Plasma cosmology page (also including the Talk pages).  In fact sometimes more is said on the talk pages because the BB proponents refuse to let me add certain things to the articles, because they are stuck in the BB paradigm and are unable to analyze the data from the more proper set of restrictions, hence think it is hocus-pocus.  Anyhow, I will be glad to assist in any way possible.  take care -Ionized 22:13, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have written to Halton Arp asking for permission to use some of his published diagrams in the non-standard cosmology article. Who was the guy who came up with Flubberizoch?! :-) Cheers Jon 15:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be great if Arp added to the page himself as well. I have written him before when I needed advice on a small seminar I gave on the topic.  It was user RoadRunner who came up with the Flubberizoch effect, as an excuse to dismiss the Arp quasar correlations.  Someone added a lot of good stuff to the page, and a lot of not so good stuff.  We will continue to sort it out.  good work so far! -Ionized 02:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict, I wasn't sure what to do (still new to this!) but I saw what you changed and added them back in. I suppose a positive way to look at it is that when opponents wade in and add stuff, it makes our work easier as we can refute where possible and incorporate the rest as "theoretical remains to be done to explain X..." or "evidence for Y is inconclusive." Did you like my idea that Arp's QSOs should show a heavy element abundance similar to their associated AGN? If that could be shown, and compared to non-associated quasars, it would be a pretty large nail in the coffin. Perhaps there are subspecies of quasar, some associated with AGN and others that are simply distant AGN? - Jon 03:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Permission from Halton Arp
Halton Arp has granted me permission to use some of his diagrams. He points to his new Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations and the arXiv article High redshift X-ray QSO near NGC 7319. My email is jon at jon d0t geek d0t nz, if you send me a mail, I'll fwd you the mail. Cheers, Jon 14:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VFD on Laser star hypothesis

 * FYI, Laser star hypothesis is on VFD. As you're on the talk page, I thought you'd like to know.

Welcome back!
It's been very interesting lately. Jon 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang
Hey - I noticed you had taken part some discussion of the Big Bang article in the past. I recently stumbled upon it when I was searching for an analysis of the views of big bang supporters and opponents. I was suprised to see that oposing views were not even mentioned in the article. I have tried to rectify that situation by adding a brief summary of the various opposing views and some links, but some people there apparently don't want other viewpoints to even be mentioned. So I thought you might be interested in taking a look at the recent discussion there... Helvetica 08:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aneutronic fusion
You might be intersted in looking at the group attack occuring at this page. Some of the same people from Plasma cosmology who defend the Big bang are now attacking hydrogen boron fusion with red herrings like radioactive wasste to scare away the non-technical from this technolgy. Have a lookElerner 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aspden
Thank you for your kind message. "Worms" seems to be the right word now; yet I think an opportunity has to be given to them in order that the may become aware of their destructive path. Nothing better than the work of an individual who came from the highest academic background, as you may see in his bio, and who through all his lifetime pursued Truth, not dogma. Let us keep an eye on it, in the article Creation: The Physical Truth too, and see if editor Harald88 may still join and aid us, in what perhaps will became the decisive battle for Science in this new century and millenia we have entered. Best Regards. --Utad3 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * May I use your support in order to try to give a clear answer to those "worms"? --Utad3 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, depends on what exactly I would be supporting :) Ill check arguments of both sides and give input if I feel a severe mistake is being made. -Ionized 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm going to bed :) Enough for today. If allowed, I would advise that you print a copy of both articles... wow, I was not aware that inviduals so educated as them, editing around about physics, maths, etc., could have so little principles. Thanks again for you kind support. Bye. --Utad3 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind support at Articles for deletion/Harold Aspden; the heresy of the Aether is now gently available at . Regards --Utad3 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This same user Utad3 has spammed Wikipedia twice anonymously as 213.58.99.22 with links to copies of its articles on Creation: The Physical Truth and Harold Aspden at PowerPedia - please see User talk:213.58.99.22 and Special:Contributions/213.58.99.22 for details. -- Jeff G. 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

 * I'm unable to respond on the Plasma Cosmology page as I've been banned for three weeks. The term is not a neologism, any more than any new scientific term or phrase is a neologism. Wiki requires us to substantiate a term from a reliable source. See for example the following peer reviewed sources on Plasma Cosmology:
 * Introduction to plasma astrophysics and cosmology, Anthony L. Peratt Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995. In it, he refers to the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, and several other mentions.


 * The term is also mentioned in the book "Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe" by science historian Prof. Helge Kragh (Princeton Univ. Press). This demonstrates primary and secondary sources.
 * I think the term "Plasma Universe" is more wide-ranging, and has a longer pedigree than "Plasma Cosmology", see:
 * "Model of the plasma universe", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 629-638


 * The term is also mentioned in science historian Helge Kragh's book. --Iantresman 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you are banned from the talk page? Since I don't see you talking there it must be the case. I will copy and paste your comments to the talk page. -Ionized 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian was banned form the talkpage as it is clearly stated in the boilerplate. I have reported your action here. --ScienceApologist 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was under the impression that if indeed he was banned from the talk page that it must have been a mistake. As his comment was not derogatory in nature, but added to the discussion that he is now apparently being prevented from joining, I found no reason why I could not paste his comments.  I see I should have better read the very last words of the decision made against him, as I see they now state- "and their talk pages." -Ionized 02:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be banned from commenting, but the information is not. You are welcome to use the information, as you see fit. --Iantresman 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this point, however the situation is now escalating and it appears that SA will attempt to use this as reason to take action against me, but since I agree with what you stated just above, I will simply stand my ground and await decision by administration. -Ionized 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Posting information on behalf of a banned user is a blockable offense, see WP:BAN. This policy deals with permanently banned users, and the Probation policy does not mention it, but I think it is reasonable to extend the policy to bans under probation.  Where a user has been banned from a page because his contributions have been deemed disruptive, it makes sense to broadly interpret the ban to prohibit the user from continuing to contribute through a proxy or third party.  The appropriate response would not be to block the proxy, but to apply the same page bans to the proxy as to the original account.
 * Reposting verbatim comments of a banned user is clearly prohibited. Taking a person's "suggestions" or "information" and making the edits yourself could certainly be interpreted as acting as a proxy for a banned user.  It would be a judgement call on the part of the admin reviewing the situation.  I decline to consider that judgement at this time, since I'm giving you a free pass on this first incident for not being aware of the rules.  The best way to avoid being caught in a ban not of your own making would be to ignore Ian's "information" until his ban expires and he is free to edit in his own name.  If you decide to edit the article as he suggested, you leave yourself open to an undesirable outcome. Cheers. Thatcher131 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, and I appreciate your response. I actually have no intention of editing the article itself (edit: I meant based only on what Ian and I discuss, I fully intend to edit the article if compromise is reached with ScienceApologist -Ionized 17:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)), and truly believe I am right in being allowed to include on the articles talk page only, the information that Ian provided me.  I do now see how this is very borderline, and certainly have no plans of acting as a proxy for Ian.  With SA's very recent changes in attitude towards the article in question, I see no reason to continue warring with him, and I see no immediate cause for acting as a proxy, because now that SA no longer intends to remove the article, surely we can wait 3 weeks for Ian to come back without any major disruptions to the article that can not be corrected later, as was the major concern before SA made his new intentions clear.  Again, I appreciate your calm headed and unbiased response in the matter Thatcher, and would be honored if you went ahead and reviewed the current situation yourself as to save us all a lot of unnecessary headache. -Ionized 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)