Talk:Plasma Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Distinction from astrophysical plasmas

We need to be sure that we do not mix up the astrophysical plasma article with this article. Plasma Universe is nonstandard suggestions about astrophysical plasmas. As such, many of the citations in the articles actually do not belong here and instead should be sent over there. Likewise, we need to include the marginal and outright rejected citations here to make the distinction abundantly clear. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They are surely not mutually exclusive. Just because standard astrophysical plasmas accepts certain aspects that appear in the Plasma Universe, and vice versa, does not preclude mentioning them in both articles where appropriate. We surely describe the whole of the Plasma Universe, not just those that differentiate from the standard astronomy -- noting what those differences are --Iantresman 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The only sense I've seen the "Plasma Universe" used in common parlance is in regards to nonstandard activities. Do you have a contemporary and up-to-date reference that indicates otherwise? A website, perhaps? --ScienceApologist 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Try the following:
  • Physics of the Plasma Universe, (1992 book) Anthony L. Peratt. See also his Plasma universe Web site (and link to Papers). His book is more extensive.
  • The Plasma Universe, (1992) Falthammar, C. G. (Click Scanned Article (GIF) for full article)
  • Electric space : evolution of the plasma universe, (1996) Anthony L. Peratt (Click Scanned Article (GIF) for full article)
  • IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Dec 1986 Vol 14 No 6, was a Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, featuring articles encompassing the Electric Universe
  • Laser and Particle Beams. Aug 1988: Vol 6 Part 3: "Special Issue on Particle Beams and Basic Phenomena in the Plasma Universe"
  • Other IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issues featuring cosmic plasmas and the Plasma Universe include:
Apr 1989 Vol 17 No 2 | Feb 1990 Vol 18 No 1 | Dec 1992 Vol 20 No 6 | Dec 2003 Vol 31 No 6
--Iantresman 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You're missing my point. The "Plasma Universe" as a concept needs to be distinguished from astrophysical plasmas. Is there any distinction other than the one I named? If there is only a nebulous and undefinable distinction, then the two articles should be merged. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It has several differentiating features based on the application of laboratory plasmas to cosmic plasma in the areas that are listed in the article. If you check the footnotes supplied, I think you will find the "theories" to be sufficiently "non-standard". And I'm sure you've come across intergalactic Birkeland currents, the cellurisation of space, cosmic electric circuits, ambiplama, etc etc. Why don't you wait for some more of the article it appear. --Iantresman 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
the application of laboratory plasmas to cosmic plasma in the areas that are listed in the article. --> actually there is no dispute in the astrophysics community about the applicability. The applicability is universally accepted. So if that's the only distinction, the articles will be merged. --ScienceApologist 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The Plasma Universe is distinct. Read one of the paper on the subject, and then tell me if it fits in with the standard view of astrophysical plasmas. --Iantresman 23:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of Alfvén's seminal papers are actually quite standard (regarding certain ISM, star formation, and solar system processes). Many of those papers you quoted are not unorthodox. So if you do not disagree with the characterization made in the article then we can start to cull some of Alfvén's more standard work from this page and deal only with nonstandard topics. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, MHD is standard. Stellar formation by z-pinch is not. Galactic formation by interacting parallel Birkeland currents is not. CIV is not. Cosmic circuits are not standard. But we describe the "theory" as a whole, not just the non-standard bits. --Iantresman 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Magnetic confinement and cooling mechanisms while not correct as Alfvén crudely derived them do actually work in stellar formation models. Why is MHD considered part of Plasma Universe? Who is making the determination of what is and isn't included? None of the authors seems to offer a concrete distinction from "Plasma Universe" and astrophysical plasma research in general. --ScienceApologist 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just write about what I read. --Iantresman 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crticism of the Plasma Universe

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)

(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)
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)
Tit-for-tat editting is ridiculous. This is under-handed editting, Ian. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, you are a big bang advocate and a materialist. It follows that you do not have any sort of understanding of plasma physics, why are you here too? Everyplace I go that has to do with plasma I find you here disputing everything that is being said by plasma researchers, why? Are you trying to help? Are yu trying to make a better encyclopedia? I don't think so. I think that as a materialist, admitted by you on your page, you must deny the existence of any other philosophies. But so ironic that you always manage to call the other "underhanded" and we know a lot about people like that.

Tommy Mandel 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of speculation

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[citation needed]. 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)

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)

If you can't tell the difference, why on earth are you trying to edit the article? Why have you restored a paragraph that I have told you is innaccurate, and which you can not substantiate? --Iantresman 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Reverted redirect

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Redirect reinstated

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