Talk:Plasma universe

message: Ned Wright's criticism is (a) not peer reviewed (a requirement of the scientific method), and you've already criticized me for not using peer-reviewed sources (even when there are hudreds of them) (b) Wrights criticism are on certain aspects of Lerner's cosmology; that's not a criticism of the Plasma Universe as a whole (c) one person's opinion must surely count as undue weight --Iantresman 23:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) the scientific method does not require peer review. Criticism does not require the method. (b) The prose in question involves examples of criticisms of cosmology in particular and since there is no monolithic type to criticize, you have no case, (c) Ned Wright criticizes Eric Lerner. It's a fact and there is no issue of minority opinion. --ScienceApologist 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you add a link from the Big Bang article to http://www.cosmologystatement.org/, and state that the Big Bang has received criticism, then you can have Wright. --Iantresman 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tit-for-tat editting is ridiculous. This is under-handed editting, Ian. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: However, some of the suggestions made during the intial research into the field have been marginalized or are considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified. Nevertheless, a small group of commited scientists and laypersons are convinced for various reasons that many of these discarded ideas are relevant and mistakenly dismissed. Today, the term "Plasma Universe" serves as an umbrella to indicate this collection of ideas which range from the allegedly fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions of the Electric Sun, a catastrophic origin of the solar system to nonstandard but more prosaic explanations regarding cosmology. 
ScienceApologist, this is complete and utter bollocks. There is NO connection of the "Plasma Universe"
with the Electric Universe as it NEVER mentions it, nothing pseudoscientific about it (it's all peer revwied), and NO connection with catastrophism. Please READ some of the articles and books on the Plasma Universe and write about what you can verify. --Iantresman 09:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read some of the articles on the so-called "Plasma Universe" subject you've recommended and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between it and astrophysical plasma. If we cannot determine what the distinction is (and if the Electric Universe really is not part of the subject) then I will redirect this article to astrophysical plasmas. --ScienceApologist 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You haven't made a case that there is a difference at all. I think that a merge may be in order. --ScienceApologist 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crticism of the Plasma Universe

message: I removed the following paragraph:
:However, some of the suggestions made during the intial research into the field have been marginalized or are considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified. Nevertheless, a small group of commited scientists and laypersons are convinced for various reasons that many of these discarded ideas are relevant and mistakenly dismissed. Today, the term "Plasma Universe" serves as an umbrella to indicate this collection of ideas which range from the allegedly fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions of the Electric Sun, a catastrophic origin of the solar system to nonstandard but more prosaic explanations regarding cosmology. 
ScienceApologist, this is complete and utter bollocks. There is NO connection of the "Plasma Universe"
with the Electric Universe as it NEVER mentions it, nothing pseudoscientific about it (it's all peer revwied), and NO connection with catastrophism. Please READ some of the articles and books on the Plasma Universe and write about what you can verify. --Iantresman 09:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read some of the articles on the so-called "Plasma Universe" subject you've recommended and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between it and astrophysical plasma. If we cannot determine what the distinction is (and if the Electric Universe really is not part of the subject) then I will redirect this article to astrophysical plasmas. --ScienceApologist 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You haven't made a case that there is a difference at all. I think that a merge may be in order. --ScienceApologist 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of speculation

message: I've reverted the unilateral decision to #redirect the article to Astrophysical plasma by WAS 4.250, based on no consensus and no discussion. --Iantresman 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is happening here Talk:Astrophysical plasma#Plasma Universe proposed merger. Right now I can see no rationale for keeping this as a separate article. --ScienceApologist 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The do your usual knee jerk response and set-up yet another an Article for Deletion. I'm sure others will have least have the courtesy to see how the article develops. --Iantresman 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted redirect

message: No work done on this article to justify its existence independent of plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect reinstated