User talk:Jonathanischoice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add discussion here... Cheers! J

You might want to look at the comments I made with regard to non-standard cosmologies.

17:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you no doubt can tell by now, Roadrunner is one of the main characters that we must appease during the creation of the non-standard and/or plasma pages. While he has some good points and often makes good contributions, sometimes he will outright censor due to prejudice, with no hope of helping him realize the error. You may see a history of this by reading the entire plasma cosmology and non-standard discussion pages. Most of the arguments that have been presented are due to thinking produced by strict belief in the correctness of the Big Bang's foundations. -Ionized 20:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cosmology

Just interested, Jonathanischoice, have you much in the way of background in terms of cosmology?

67.172.158.8 18:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non taken

Thanks for your comment in my talk page. I hope my counter-rant was likewise taken in stride. Water is good, enjoy. TTLightningRod 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As to the exiting Temple 1 experiment... After NASA itself, a large portion of my news and interpretation of Deep Impact has been provided by http://www.plasmacosmology.net/ A large number of people associate with, and collaborate on, content and reference linking there. Wiki's here on say Plasma Cosmology do not seem to adequately reflect the true amount of dialogue going on. This applies to a number of other non-mainstream approaches to electrical phenomenon proposed as playing a larger role running through all categories; physics, chemistry, biology... With this activity, there are always an additional number of unsettling people and ideas... like "Planet X", Velikovsky, and cultish Teslites or Richeans. Yet, IMHO, these are all still very much a part of the encyclopedia fabric, just as Greek Mythology, Native American folklore, even a long list of negative proofs supplied by tax funded NASA.
The contention and edit warring, are certainly no fun, but this (again, IMHO) is a reflection of the very difficult re-examination we are forced to go through when fundamentals like a Standard Model are brought under a microscope. I hope you stick with the efforts, and move in-stride with the Drama, or even a new understanding of how things work. TTLightningRod 13:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

Please read WP:NPA. –Joke137 17:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Fortunately, between you and me, I've had contact with him before. As he says, he hardly has time to do his own work, let alone squabble in these kinds of anarchic forums. I also contacted a few other well known people, and hope to have a reply from at least one more of them. Yes, it is sad about the intransigent position of the others. On the other hand, it is quite understandable as the subject is a direct attack on their own paradigms, for which they have been working hard for years. I've never know individuals as myopic as this before, as nearly everyone else I've ever encountered will engage in a constructive dialogue. Ian. 18/Nov/05

[edit] RfC: redshift

Thanks for the barnstar. Your support would be appreciated on the redshift talk page where I have set-up a Request for Comments. --Iantresman 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aneutronic fusion

Hi Jonathan--you might be intersted in the dust-up we are having over at aneutornic fusion. Some of the same characters from the defense of the Big Bang are trying to shoot down hydrogen-boron fusion. Have a look! Eric Lerner68.39.247.3 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And what are your thoughts on the Electric Universe model?

I note you're interested in plasma cosmology. EU is an extension of PC. Have you ever been to thunderbolts.info? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts/impressions. If not, check out their picture of the day archive. You might find it of interest.

If you're already into EU as an extension of the Plasma Cosmology model, you might be interested to see the following article I just posted to Ian's User Talk:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/2005_dust_devil.html

It appears that some confirmation of EU model predictions is slowly takign place. Note the statement by researchers: ( The team believes they made the first Doppler LIDAR measurements of an invisible dust devil. "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime," said Dr. Brent Bos of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. )

It appears that the prediction of collimated, electrically charged filaments as causation for dust devils, tornadoes, water spouts, land spouts is finally coming true. Specifically, the collimated filament is still visible via LIDAR for a substatial part of its lifetime despite there being no evidence of any flying dust particles.

IE traditional physics had it wrong. Dust machined into the air is not the cause of filamentation and longevity. Rather it appears to be an occasional effect of machining by the collimated filament. IE, theorists got cause and effect backwards. The electrical filament stands on its own without dust in the air. It causes (machines) dust to lift off the surface and swirl in a cyclonic fashion.

I'd expect these same measurements to be madec of pre- and post-tornadic system including landspouts and water spouts. Justmy 2c, but if you've seen any of the pictures of land spouts and water spouts, they're basically a giant cylindrical (collimated) structure with "stuff" swirling around it (IE, dirt, debris, water, whatever).

Cheers mate! Would enjoy some discussion from a truthseeker. :) Mgmirkin 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to ignore EU on the whole as some of it is still highly speculative, but I keep an open mind on absolutely everything. Jon 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration you may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellingtonians

Hello, JIC[?]. I've never talked to you, as far as I recall. But I decided to say a few friendly words to everyone in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Wellington since joining that category recently. (Incidentally, if you tweak your page link to that category, by adding a pipe then your user name, you will appear in proper alpha order instead of under "U".)

A bit of a programmer, eh? Maybe you could help with a few technical improvements at the genealogy Wikia?

Kind regards - Robin Patterson 07:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propolis and...

I saw just very good work with biblio, if you visit herbalism, could see how much to do --Penarc (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUK

WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack removed

I removed your recent comment on Talk:Eric Lerner as a blatant personal attack on another user. Please read and comply with WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)