Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 7

message: The redirect was made due to a lack of divergent content. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma Universe now redirects here

message: You should have kept feeding Tommy Mandel, then he would never have brought his universal plasma consciousness theories over to Crop Circles Which is considerably easier to troll. Entertaining reading though. --Darkfred Talk to me 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Guys 

message: Scienceapologist, you reverted my mention that Hubble did not believe in expansion. Then you referrred to it as nonsence. You are lieing Scienceapologist, because you know that Sandage went into some detail about how Hubble did not believe in expansion "to his dying day" I have posted the references but you deleted them. You, a big bang supporter, who apparently does not have enough confidence in your favorite theory to let the truth come out, delete evidence, and then say there isn't any. You demean plasma cosmology and the editors constantly. You do not belong here, why are you here? Why are you a big bang supporter so concerned about the other theory?" It sure isn't to make sure that we get all our information out. You appear to be trolling.
Tommy Mandel 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe ScienceApologist agrees with you about Hubble's opinion, but disagrees with you about whether Hubble's opinion is much more significant today than Aristotle's. Art LaPella 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be misrepresenting SA but my point was, if SA considers your statement of Hubble's opinion to be irrelevant rather than wrong, then he isn't lying or destroying useful evidence - he's removing what he perceives as irrelevant. Art LaPella 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I lost that train of thought starting with the first sentence. If you use the word "lying", then in addition to the obvious Wikipedia:No personal attacks problem, you have to prove he said something that isn't his opinion; therefore his opinion matters. Art LaPella 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Let me explain - Doppler Redshift is is foundational in Big bang theory. It purports a changing universe, and implies that this change, if taken to it's logical end, has a beginning. Some have assumed this beginning must be a point and thus a big bang was called for. IF redshift is not a Doppler effect, then there is no reason to assume a change, and without a change there is no cause for a point beginning. Without a point beginning there is no reason for inflation. 
With no point beginning and no inflation, we find that plasma exists by default in that state which the big bang theory eventually arrives at in its journey from a point to everywhere. So plasma cosmology differs from the big bang in that there is no point beginning to begin with. What is called "precision cosmology" is actually the physics after plasma. But the big bang does not consider plasma in every situation, instead it tries to focus on gravity alone. And to make that work, they have had to come up with invisible energy and matter, hypothetical entities yet to be detected. So much of big bang cosmology is constructed on yet to be verified energy and matter, some of which would have to had to use a different kind of physics than what we know of. SA knows full well the significance of redshift, and the FACT that argubably the world's greatest astronomer did not believe in expansion, and had the integrity to admit that he didn't know what caused reshift, is very relevant in any cosmological theory. So my claim is that SA seleted it not because it was irrelevant, but because he understood the relevancy. So when he says "that is nonsense" he is not mistaken, or ignorant, he is lying about it. Specifically, he is telling what he knows is not true. 
Quantized redshift was observed by Tifft and confirmed many times since. It has been stated that a Doppler effect would blur the periodicities, they cannot co-exist together. Quantized redshift is evidence that redshift is not Doppler related. SA knows this, and will not admit quantized redshift evidence in the plasma cosmolgy article because it was not discovered by a plasma cosmologist. 
According to SA, the fact that he is wrong is not relevant.
Your friends, Art, are cheating. 
Tommy Mandel 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or to summarize it less charitably, you're retracting "his opinion does not matter one bit" and replacing it with a claim about his opinion: "what he knows is not true". Do you also retract the comment that drew my original objection: "Hubble did not believe in expansion...It is a lie to state otherwise"? To my knowledge, SA has never stated otherwise. He calls it "nonsense" but I believe he means it's irrelevant, not wrong. If we can agree on that, then maybe we can agree on this: Is Hubble, arguably the world's greatest astronomer of his time, still arguably the highest authority today, despite his ignorance of microwave background studies and Hubble Telescope data? Art LaPella 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define "objective evidence" for us.
Tommy Mandel 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hubble did not believe in an expanding Universe

message: For the record...From Wikipedia NPOV page
Explanation of the neutral point of view
The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. 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.
Tommy Mandel 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Art LaPella 22:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy

message: The references in support of this theory are dominated (to the exclusion of almost all else) by a single author, who is also an editor.  WP:NOT a soapbox.  If no other sources exist then we should probably have a drastically shorter article. Guy 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea! After all, the Universe is only 99% plasma.  So after SA manages to delete all the evidence, maybe we can shorten it to nothing. Tommy Mandel 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article might be, if it was unsupported by peer-reviewed sources. There are other authors cited, such Hannes Alfvén, C.-G. Falthammar and Anthony Peratt. I think that Lerner appears to have more citations that most since he is able to provide more detailed citations that the other authors.  For example, the section "Alfvén's model" is relatively sparse of citations, but we'll try and make up this deficiency. --Iantresman 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with references 

message: I can see why Marmet's non-Doppler redshift is removed, but why is the "plasma redshift" removed? It is a separate redshift theory,? --Iantresman 14:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This flight-of-fancy and non-peer reviewed idea by a single researcher doesn't seem to be considered by the usual suspects of plasma cosmology. Maybe they're hesitant to accept it because they consider their work to be based on laboratory plasmas and as the author of this speculation submits: "conditions (high temperature and low densities over extended dimensions) necessary for its observation cannot be created in laboratory experiments." It appears that the instance you cited was not to this particular idea. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ari Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift theory is first dated 2000, three years before it is mentioned in Gallo's 2003 article. Gallo and Brynjolfsson are both one of the original signatories on the Open Letter cosmological statement. --Iantresman 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plasma based redshifts

message: I would like to request that only Art Carlson contributes to the article based on verifiable material sourced by him, or provided by others. --Iantresman 16:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Art, Peratt's description of Birkeland's contribution to plasma cosmology can be found in his paper "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology", A. L. Peratt, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995) (576KB). Would you propose a couple of sentences that include (a) Some dates (b) What ideas Birkeland contributed. My original version is here. --Iantresman 16:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Art Carlson request

message: *I can't find any verifiable sources linking Klein to the history of plasma cosmology
*I can't find the reference to Klein 1950's paper that astrophysical plasmas may play an important role in galaxy formation
*Are we saying that:
:*Oskar Klein was the first person to proposed plasmas play an important role in galaxy formation (he wasn't)
:*Oskar Klein first proposed plasmas play an important role in galaxy formation in 1950
:*The reference to Alfvén's baryon asymmetry "Cosmic electrodynamics" does not mention the subject, nor does it mention Klein.
:*I can find no verifiable reference confirming that "Alfvén-Klein model — a progenitor of today's nonstandard proposal of "plasma cosmology"." --Iantresman 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More history

message: *Please provide quotes for the following:
:*An origin in time for the universe is rejected
:*due to the fact that Anthony Peratt is an editor of the periodical 
*Please indicate HOW the mention of dusty plasmas is unclear.  If you read the article, it give detailed formula that demonstrate how EM compares to gravity for particle size.
*Please find an alternative for "a few" researchers, which is described as a Weasel word --Iantresman 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information required

message: Art, just wanted to say that your recent comments on Peratt's work  are a good example of criticism: verifiable and from reliable sources. --Iantresman 10:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peratt criticisms

message: I wanted to look into Lerner's ideas on the origin of cosmic deuterium. If I am using my tools properly, that article has not been cited a single time:
 Cited Author=(Lerner) AND Cited Work=(IEEE T PLASMA SCI) AND Cited Year=(2003)
 Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI; Timespan=1900-2006
 0 references matched the query
Can anyone verify that? --Art Carlson 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked ADSABS for his 1995 AP&SS article on BBN. It is never cited by anybody. His 1989 ITPS paper "Galactic model of element formation" was cited twice by himself and once by Marmet. --ScienceApologist 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It turns out Lerner does mention gamma ray production, but he doesn't bring it into relation with the previous results (bad scientific practice). I tried to bring this into the article as fairly as I could. This is a lot of work and to do it absolutely right takes a lot of background in the field - more than I have. This is the trouble with writing articles on extreme minority viewpoints, even if there are refereed publications on the topic. If there are no secondary sources, anything an editor does verges on original research, but the only alternative is to not mention it at all. --Art Carlson 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the biggest problem with this article. The tremendously poor quality of the work produced by Lerner and Peratt is evident by the fact that they do not mention the obvious contradictions to their work, and as their work is ignored, neither does anybody else verifiably. Nevertheless, to present their work fairly, we should illustrate how easy it is to refute them off-handedly. But how to do that according to the standards of the encyclopedia? This quandry is probably why other encyclopedia such as Brittanica do not have articles on such ideas: they are simply too far removed from the mainstream to be worth the headache. This is why I think peer-review criticism is so important in order for ideas in science to be considered notable. Note that plasma cosmology suffers from a lack of peer reviewed criticism: no one bothers to refute it or point out problems with it because nearly no one thinks it is developed enough to warrant comment. Since plasma cosmology advocates themselves are pretty ignorant of the current state of the field, as Art Carlson is discovering, it is a re-education process that is worth wasting no one's time. Reader's have nothing to gain from being exposed to such an ill-posed subject. Hopefully the notability guidelines will develop towards continued marginalization of these borderline subjects. --ScienceApologist 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If their work is so easy to refute, then submit a paper to a journal for peer review, where it would have far more value than merely stating your point of view. --Iantresman 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a waste of my time to submit a paper to peer review refuting a bunch of amateurish drivel that everybody who studies the subject academically dismisses out-of-hand. There are enough hare-brained ideas floating around that do get through critical review to spend time on. Refuting plasma cosmology will not happen until it can be shown to be as predictive a model as Lambda-CDM. The scientific community doesn't suffer fools gladly, and doesn't suffer those who even entertain such fools. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why the hell do pigheads like you waste all your valuable time here? Jon 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks but I'm not sure where I would stop. "Fools" and "pretty ignorant" means people not here, right? Art LaPella 07:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lerner on light element abundances 

message: If there is a "radio fog" at wavelengths above 100 microns, how is it possible to make high-contrast, high-resolution images in the far infrared? More to the point, how does plasma cosmology explain it? (Compare, for example, these images of Andromeda in the visible and at 175 microns.) --Art Carlson 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it their contention that the "radio fog" is the CMB? --ScienceApologist 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but how can you have fog and sharp images? If I look at a lighthouse through a fog I don't see a bright point of light on a grey background, I see a big fuzz where the grey is a little lighter. If there is enough dust in our cosmic neighborhood to thermalize FIR radiation, then there must be enough dust to blur the FIR images of distant galaxies. (More generally, of course, I want to figure out how the idea of thermalized starlight as CMB can be most easily seen to be wrong.) --Art Carlson 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how they square the fog-mechanism with sharp emission in the CMB range. Objects that have temperatures close to the CMB temperature should indeed be distorted if there was a radio fog. Unless those objects are closer than the cosmic iron whiskers doing the distorting. Anyway, this is all too much meandering through the Black Forest for my tastes. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "radio fog" 

message: I just decided to pop in and see how this article is doing, and I notice the top of the talk page where it says that E. Lerner has been banned from editing the article.  Wow, good game to you wikipedians!  This is further proof of every criticism I have ever made about Wikipedia and the systems in place to 'peer review' etc etc.  I just don't get it though, is it only me that thinks it is a huge Red Flag to BAN from an article someone who can directly contribute first hand knowledge on the subject?  Now that one of the pioneers in the field has been prevented from making contribution, we can watch the article fall back under control of the 'naysayers' and BB proponents.  I apologize for not helping to defend your position and this article, Mr. Lerner, I did not realize what was happening as I am no longer a frequent visitor, due very much to the exact types of practices that you have witnessed and have been put through.  Honestly you people expect to understand plasma cosmology yet you ignore nearly everything we say (you can't help it your mind is in a different paradigm, and some minds are simply unwilling, perhaps unable, to switch) and many of you don't even appear to be attempting your own research into the field.  Then you ban from article editing those who DO know what is going on.  I am not banned from the article but you can see by my history I had to leave it long ago because of the same types of attacks.  Anyhow, I just wanted to add my comment about how disgusting it is to see that Mr. Lerner has been banned from the article.  --Ionized
:*Remarkably, he was banned for (a) Being Eric Lerner  (b) for having impure thoughts (an "advocate of the plasma cosmology theory") (c) promotion of a "plasma focus device" (d) Raising money for his company (e) Being a director of a company.
:*That Eric is an award-winning science writer with over 600 articles under his belt, and an expert in the subject, seems to have been of no consequence. So watch out! --Iantresman 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh...  thanks for the additional voice, I notice you where one of the 'probated' while the BB proponent just gets off with a warning, lol to that.  Ah yes the plasma focus device, I remember giving a physics seminar on the device and how it relates to quasar models (and can be used to relate to Arp's observations of quasars.)  We honestly do need to further fund and understand these plasma models, so you can count me in on promotion of the plasma focus device since it is directly relevant to understanding of certain astrophysical processes. -Ionized 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume that Eric Lerner was banned for his editing behavior rather than his knowledge (which, of course, he can still offer on the talk pages). I am very disappointed that the ArbComm did not make their reasons for a ban clear. You are welcome, Ionized, to promote any device or theory you like, but please remember that Wikipedia articles are not the place to do it. --Art Carlson 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I had asked ArbCom in a couple of places to do just this, (a) Give the reasons for the bans (b) Provide examples of the evidence. --Iantresman 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I would prefer to think that his editing behavior is what earned the ban, but that is just surface data, an excuse, because in my eyes it is the BB proponents that have over stepped their editing ethics while on non standard pages.  Art I appreciate your comment about promoting theories just not on Wikipedia.  Now if we can just get all the adherents of standard cosmology to also stop promotion of their theories, maybe you could just go over to the BB page and remind everyone there of the same thing, it would help matters a bit.  And I don't want to get back into wars over what is pov or npov etc, if everyone just reads the entire talk archives of this page you will all see that these types of wars have been going on for many years here, and indeed for thousands of years historically.  It is one of the reasons I dropped out of the wiki race, and honestly when I found that Mr. Lerner had come here and began edits I felt that something like this would happen all over again, as it had in the past to myself and others. -Ionized 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wow." 

message: I've got some problems with this paragraph, too. It was added by a certain editor who recently had a run-in with the "law", apparently as original research, since he didn't cite any verifiable source. As you may have noticed, I am not as a matter of principle against including unpublished arguments, but they should be darn good ones. In this case, the authors of the study cited draw no conclusion about the origin of the CMB. In fact they point out that "The SZE has already been detected in a large number of high-redshift clusters using interferometric techniques of higher resolution than
the WMAP data .... Comparison of radio interferometry and X-ray data for the same clusters show that SZE-derived and X-ray derived masses and gas
fractions are in agreement...." If the plasma theory were true, you would expect the see more effect for low-z clusters and less effect for high-z clusters. The data, "which could still be suffering from systematic, yet hitherto unknown, biases", indicate the opposite, if they indicate anything. Between being unverifiable and being illogical, I think I have to remove this. --Art Carlson 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SZ effect 

message: Removed from article:
Additionally gravity is important at large scales, magnetic forces are important in plasma since magnetic forces, like gravity, cannot be shielded. For example, in the Local Supercluster of galaxies, the magnetic field is 0.3 microgauss over a volume 10 Mpc in radius centered on the Milky Way.Philipp Kronberg, "New Probes of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields  by Radiometry and Faraday Rotation", J. Korean Astron. Soc., 37, 343 (2004).
As I've said before, this paragraph is extremely problematic. Here's the issue: Kronberg is on the high-end of magnetic field measurements for intergalactic space. A quote from a popular-level article:
:"I'm surprised, very surprised," says Russell M. Kulsrud of Princeton University, adding that he harbors some doubts that the strengths "are quite as high as [Kronberg] said." But even if the field strengths are a bit smaller, he adds, "they are still . . . very difficult to explain."
This is an open question and to propose it as a bald fact like this is extremely problematic. Therefore I have removed this per reliable source and verifiability concerns. --ScienceApologist 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have minor issue with this, because instead of removing the original comments completely, it could have been left in and slightly reworded, and then the quote from R. Kulsrud could have also been added to give more context and to neutralize the point of view a bit.  This could still be done of course, there is nothing keeping us from adding it back in as long as it is not worded as 'bald fact'. -Ionized 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to find a better source. Since Kronberg is not a reliable source on the magnetic field of intergalactic space, he should not be used as the source for this measurement. --ScienceApologist 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are being the judge of what a reliable source is compared to an unreliable source, the burden is on you to find the more reliable source.  Until such time, the content should be put back into the article. -Ionized 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Since the content is not directly related to plasma cosmology, it will not be included. There are no plasma cosmology adherents who are making the measurement, so this doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intergalactic magnetic field

message: *Art, do think that "Lerner accepts the existence of dark matter..."? To me, his quote seems to imply that he is considering warm plasma instead of the dark matter (as it is generally understood). I accept that warm plasma could be described as baryonic dark matter, but I don't think Lerner would use the phrase, and there could be confusion with non-Baryonic dark matter? 
*I also don't know whether Peratt and Lerner differ in this view. --Iantresman 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Peratt says A and Lerner says B, I'd say they differ. Wouldn't you? --Art Carlson 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was under the impression that Lerner in no way accepts the standard premise of Dark Matter.  Just a few quotes from his popular book "BBNH": pg53 '..hypothetical creatures such as dark matter..' pg162 '..the dark matter itself was ruled out..' pg32 a section heading titled 'The Dark Matter that Wasn't There'  etc etc.  just as a few examples. -Ionized 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark matter

message: This section did seem a bit redundant. It might be a good idea to put a one- (or two-)line bio of Peratt and Lerner in the History section to avoid the awkward introductions in the text. That would also be the place to point out that we really don't talk about anybody else, i.e. since Alfven died in 1995, plasma cosmology has been a two-man show. --Art Carlson 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it was first added the section was non-redundant because it included non-prominent figures who where auxiliary and not mentioned in the rest of the article.  It is not a 2 man show, however the 2 men that you refer to seem to be the only professionals not afraid to continue publicly voicing their opinion.  It will be interesting to see what the 07 Special Issue of IEEE contains, and who says what.  I mourn the loss of the section simply because it leaves the reader with the impression that only a few people on earth are contributing or have contributed to the field, when it seems to me the auxiliary contributions have enough merit to include. -Ionized 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures in plasma cosmology 

message: I shortened the caption to Peratt's simulation to conform to the amount of information that is included about the image itself. There is no discussion relevant to the images themselves of a galaxy rotation curve. There is also no discussion relevant to the images themselves of a thickness to the disk (other than it was a 2-D simulation). Therefore, I removed these points as spoonfeeding. If we are going to include the image, we should describe it as is. --ScienceApologist 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoonfeeding in Peratt's simulation caption

message: I removed this section to here for discussion:
===Quasars===
Lerner developed a plasma model of quasars based on the dense plasma focus fusion device. In this device, converging filaments of current form a tight, magnetically confined ball of plasma on the axis of cylindrical electrodes. As the magnetic field of the ball, or plasmoid, decays, it generates tremendous electric fields that accelerate a beam of ions in one direction and a beam of electrons in the other. In Lerner’s model, the electric currents generated by a galaxy spinning in an intergalactic magnetic field converge on the center, producing a giant plasmoid, or quasar. This metastable entity, confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it, generates both the beams and intense radiation observed with quasars and active galactic nuclei. Lerner compared in detail the predictions of this model with quasar observations.E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193‑222. This contradicts the standard model of quasars as distant active galactic nuclei (that is, supermassive black holes which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are accreting).
Here's the problem: the only reference to this section is to a paer Lerner wrote in 1986. A 20-year-old paper cannot deal with the current state of quasar observations (obviously). How important is Lerner's plasma focus to plasma cosmology? Can anyone find a more recent paper that can help us describe the importance of this? Has Lerner commented on the observations of host galaxies? What does Lerner think of Peratt's opinions from his galaxy simulations that follow Arp's wacko proposals that quasars form the cores of new galaxies? We need to be more careful in how we present these points: this section in particular is very much a spoonfeeding of information for reasons that do not support the general article.
--ScienceApologist 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my removal was based on the fact that the only reference to this section was to a 20-year-old paper that may not have relevance any more. But it may have relevance, I'm not sure. So let's talk about it here. And I'm entitled to my opinion about Arp's wacko ideas about quasars being ejected from AGN. Just as you are entitled to your ideas about the Big Bang being wrong. And I will not refrain from "touching" the article since I am an editor and am allowed to edit. --ScienceApologist 20:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You pull out a part of the article for discussion, then ask very important questions, and I gaurantee that in response you will begin saying things like 'prove it with a verifiable peer reviewed artcle', which may not have been published yet due to all of the standard censorship that surely is not unknown to you.  You are clearly attempting to start another trap, a clear attempt to KEEP this out of the article because you know full well that coming up with 2006 references is likely impossible.  However your reasoning is flawed at the outset, you can not say something is irrelevant because it is 20 years old, that would be like us saying Einsteins papers from 1905 are irrelevant.  The content should not be removed based on this reasoning. -Ionized 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of bemoaning, this, perhaps you can help us reach a compromise on whether or not we need to include this 20-year-old quasar model of a single individual here. --ScienceApologist 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be included for a historical basis alone, if nothing else.  First the attempts are to remove from the article any auxiliary contributions to PC based on the reasoning that those people are not 'plasma cosmologists'.  Now we are moving on to removing direct contributions to PC?  Am I the only one that is noticing the patterns? -Ionized 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that it is all that important to the history of plasma cosmology. Can you explain what about it makes it important to the history of plasma cosmology?  --ScienceApologist 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not convinced?  Since when does article content rely solely upon your conviction?  No, I will not take the time (right now anyhow) to point out the obvious to you.  Perhaps later tonight.  What if I where to say to you "I'm not convinced that Einstein's papers and ideas where all that important to Big Bang cosmology."  Does that put the burden of proof onto you to convince me?  And does that automatically mean that any part of any article here on  wiki that mentions Einstein and his work should be removed simply because I am not convinced that it is important? -Ionized 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are editors here, and we work from consensus. I can convince you that Einstein's relativity is important to GR. Explain to me why Lerner's quasar model is important to pc. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we are here to describe plasma cosmology. However, just because a supporter of plasma cosmology has an idea does not make that idea relevant to plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention that the idea was within the framework and inherently connected to plasma cosmology, so yes, it does make it relevant.  How are you unable to see this? -Ionized 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that explaining quasars by using plasma-based arguments from a "plasma cosmologist" makes it relevant to plasma cosmology. Pretty basic connection if you ask me. ABlake 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Lerner makes plasma-based arguments about aneutronic fusion, does that make it relevant to plasma cosmology? --ScienceApologist 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Lerner does make plasma-based arguments about laboratory-based aneutronic fusion, he also compares that to the cosmos-scaled phenomena of quasars. So, yes, that does make it relevant. ABlake 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't we discuss aneutronic fusion in the article? --ScienceApologist 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has its own article.  Would you like to create an article specifically about Lerner's quasar model?  Is there one already? -Ionized 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor rationale. Just because some topic doesn't have its own article doesn't mean it should be included here. --ScienceApologist 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ScienceApologist. We should include a line or two about Lerner's aneutronic fusion work, and tie that in to the quasar extrapolation. That makes sense since it shows an example of a plasma cosmologist's work and how it connects laboratory work with cosmological theory. Just make sure to reference it. Then we can stop arguing about this. ABlake 15:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to someone explaining to me how aneutronic fusion relates to cosmology in a coherent sentence or two that can be included in this article. Right now, color me skeptical. --ScienceApologist 15:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Dense plasma focus is important to Plasma cosmology. It is explained in Lerner's paper. The physics of the plasma focus has not changed in that time. --Iantresman 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight: "A is important to X field. It is explained in B's paper. The physics of A has not changed in that time". That's no justification, that's not even an attempt at one. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done some research. I see nothing in the research to indicate that plasma cosmology is dependent on Lerner's idea about quasars 20 years ago. --ScienceApologist 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't even your initial argument, and it certainly wasn't mine.  If that has become your argument, it fails as well.  The PC article is not restricted to the phenomena and theory that form its dependencies, which you have so gracefully removed as well.  It can also include models built within its framework at a latter time, built on its foundations if you will.  We are talking about a model about a phenomena addressed within PC, hence it is part of PC and should be in the article. -Ionized 01:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. As plasma cosmology is defined in the article, just because something is relevant to plasma doesn't mean it is necessarily relevant to plasma cosmology. Seriously, does no one have a rebuttal to my point? If not, then I can see that this was a good removal. --ScienceApologist 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No one will ever have a rebuttal for your arguments, because you just won't accept them. This is not a discussion. Ever since you tried to label the article as pseudoscience,, twice, , based on no verifiable source, you have become the self-designated judge and jury of all minority views. --Iantresman 11:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ScienceApologist, what, exactly, IS your point?  This content needs to be added back into the article, SA is not the sole judge over what content should be in the PC article, based on his opinions of what relates to PC and what doesn't.  Who here is arguing that 'if something is relevant to plasma, it is relevant to plasma cosmology'?  While in a certain sense that is true due to the inherent nature of PC as being based on multi-scale observables, it is also not always the case.  Besides, what YOU are debating is indeed a plasma cosmology model, formed by a plasma cosmologist within the framework of plasma cosmology.  Are you prepared to argue that Lerner's model of quasar formation based on the physics behind the plasma focus device indeed has nothing to do with plasma cosmology?  That would be like us arguing that any standard model of quasars, built by standard cosmologists, has nothing to do with standard cosmology.  The irony is clear. -Ionized 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: May I point out the 1986 paper that you originally brought up? And I changed back the title of this section to something more appropriate for civil discussion. ABlake 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may point it out, but it still doesn't answer my question of what a plasma model for quasars has to do with cosmology. --ScienceApologist 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If "Standard quasars models have nothing to do with standard cosmology." is true, then why are any alternative interpretation of quasar so heavily fought against?  Because indeed, our understanding of quasar and their redshift is essential to cosmology, and if it is truly the case that high redshift quasar are emitted from lower redshift AGN, this has ramifications to the overarching cosmological framework. -Ionized 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your evidence that alternative interpretations are "fought" against? I think you are way behind in the times, Ionized. Do you even know what the highest redshift object ever observed is? --ScienceApologist 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  One piece of evidence, is right here on this talk page, and indeed in this section.  Answer to your second question, yes, I do.  Goodnight, I have to work in the morning. -Ionized 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to actually do research rather than basing your opinions on the world in Wikipedia talkpages. Seeing as how the highest redshift quasar is nowhere near low redshift AGN, it is pretty bizarre to continue in this blind-alley advocacy, but that's a different matter. --ScienceApologist 03:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a more recent paper concerning the issue of discordant redshift QSO and AGN associations.  While it doesn't address all of your specific concerns, it does refute your insistence that QSO controversies where long ago dismissed.  "On quasar distances and lifetimes in a local model", Bell, M.B., Astrophys. J., vol. 567, no. 2 ser. 1, pp. 801-10, 2002.  -Ionized 15:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, your banter is bordering on sarcasm, and it brings a smile to my face.  You have quite the sense of humor! -Ionized 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Being sarcastic doesn't help, and the interpersonal, intellectual banter is really bothersome when it doesn't contribute significantly to the resolution of the question at hand. ABlake 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  I will try to be less personal when I write.  It can be difficult at times though because this subject has had a profound impact on my life.  However I do feel that my discussions in the talk page are based on attempts to contribute.  In the future I will attempt to simply not respond to ad homish attacks, unless it is clear that a point is being missed.  Thanks for your NPOV ABlake, it is seriously refreshing. -Ionized 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lerner's quasar model

message: Peratt's galaxy formation model is weirder and weirder the more I look into it. I realize he was developing this at a time when hierarchical formation models were still in their infancy, and so there was some freedome of speculation in the field at the time. However, his formation ideas are really strange. I think they go something like this:
QSO ejected --> Radio galaxy (double-lobes) --> Elliptical galaxy --> Irregular galaxy --> Spiral galaxy --> AGN --> QSO ejected.
Of course, we now know that there are major problems with such a timeline, but is this what other editors see in Peratt's listing? Also, how tied is the plasma cosmology models to such a process? Inquiring minds wish to know!
--ScienceApologist 05:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can find no sources which question Peratt's time line. Your comments amount to original research. You are confusing the most popular hypothesis of the day, with truth. It concerns me greatly that you are presenting a hypothesis as a truth. --Iantresman 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't asking if there were sources which question Peratt's timeline. I was asking if my presentation of the timeline was correct. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't got a clue. Check a Reliable source. --Iantresman 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peratt's galaxy formation model