Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Brittanica as a source?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not just your average alternative

message: 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.
*"Alfvén's Cosmological theory.. "
*"The newer plasma cosmology model is an improvement in that.."
*"More recently a theory called “Plasma Cosmology”..."
--Iantresman 11:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Plasma Cosmology Model

message: (note: this section too, was a continuation and reply from the above two sections. -Ionized 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Specific ideas of this article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Explained as you just did, that makes much more sense now.  Thanks for your clarification. -Ionized 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New focus for the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: PC WIP

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stealth creationism 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll be bold and add the best definition I can come up with. ABlake 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How would you convey the idea differently? ABlake 11:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps by omission of mentioning gravity? I don't know that it adds anything. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Definition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Connection to Velikovsky

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll do some more digging to see if anything fits the criteria for notability. ABlake 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited Discussion

message: "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)
thread_title: Paragraph from "Comparison to mainstream cosmology"

message: 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.See for example: Dekel, A. and Silk, J. The origin of dwarf galaxies, cold dark matter, and biased galaxy formation Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 39-55. where they model plasma processes in galaxy formation that is driven primarily by gravitation of cold dark matter.
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)
replies: text: *It's appropriate because it is accurate, and WP:NPOV tells us to attribute biased statements. --Iantresman 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: When the mainstream is all there is

message: *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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: simply extrapolating plasma phenomena

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: workable mathematical models

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents

message: *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)
thread_title: largest scales

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