Talk:Astrophysical plasma

Scope of "space plasmas"

Currently space plasma and space plasmas (created by Iantresman) redirect to astrophysical plasma. Arianewiki1 objects. So what do we do with these two redirects -- re-target to plasmasphere, instead? Then what do we do with the whole of Category:Space plasmas? Thanks for your thoughts. fgnievinski (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski:Ah very good. That explains it all. Iantresman is a known follower of plasma cosmology, in which he has made many of these edits. As I've said on your Talk page here [1], space plasma is an older term which talks mostly on the environment near the Earth or Solar System. In plasma cosmology there is an unfounded belief that assumes as said on that page - "Alfvén proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and space plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders-of-magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe" This is proven not to be true. I.e. The magnetic fields between galaxies are not coherent for example or that interstellar clouds have weak magnetic fields.

Iantresman also under Space physics wrote "Space physics is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the Earth's upper atmosphere and in the universe.", which is not correct under the proper definition. (I fear this too has been done just to confuse things and it has gone unnoticed. Notably too, this page mentions no astrophysical source at all.) (Note: I've changed this immediately.)

Many fanatical plasma cosmologist supporters of these ideas have desperately tried to use various Wikipedia pages to promote these views, especially across non-contentious aspects of plasma and magnetic fields. (I've fought many battles over it.) The words space plasma physics has been added here to support this notion, which has gone unnoticed until your edits. The word should be placed globally just under plasma (physics) plasma physics. (Note: I've change this immediately.)

Most of the discussion / issues appears under Plasma (physics), under the section Research (bottom of page), and it clearly distinguishes between space plasma and astrophysical plasma. (In astronomy and astrophysics, the discipline space physics is globally place under solar physics).

The basic reason space physics and astrophysics are different, is that science can measure phenomenae directly by (physical) experimentation I.e. Satellites or magnetometers. Astrophysics cannot do this directly, and rely on observation and deduction. I.e. Radio telescopes or polarimetry can only detect magnetic fields indirectly.

What I'd suggest;

1) What probably needs to be done is to remove both the space plasma and space plasmas redirects.

2) Definition and explain differences between space plasma and astrophysical plasma on both the pages.

3) Space plasma and Space plasmas be merged into Space plasma.

4) Redirect Space plasma into Space physics

5) Category:Space plasmas be changed to the more global Category:Space physics

6) Category:Space physics mergers all these disciplines.

Do you think this is the best course of action?

I really do appreciate very much your expression of the problem, which is more widespread than even I thought! Cheers for that!

Note: "So what do we do with these two redirects -- re-target to plasmasphere..." We cannot do that, because the term plasmasphere is a defined part of the Earth's magnetic field. That would not be advisable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrophysical plasma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905223019/http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu:80/us-rus/ to http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/us-rus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why plasma is stated as 'highly ionised'

@DDilworth:I have reverted your edit on Astrophysical plasma, as the removal of the word 'highly' from the text now implies something quite different. This particular debate using 'highly' has occurred several times before, and has historically has caused editing issues across multiple pages on subjects to do with plasma. Ionisation does not have to be mean that substances are in a plasma state. Its classical meaning infers that plasma state must heated to become electrically conductive, which is unlike, say, metals and solutions.

As the article on Plasma says:

"Based on the surrounding environmental temperature and density either partially ionised or fully ionised forms of plasma may be produced. Partially ionised plasma is popularly understood, for example, as bright neon signs or lightning storms, while more fully ionised plasma is associated with the interior of the Sun, the solar corona, and stars.

The positive charge in ions is achieved by stripping away electrons from atomic nuclei. The number of electrons removed is related to either the increase in temperature or the local density of other ionised matter. This also can be accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, though this fundamental process is distinctly different from chemical processes of ion interactions in liquids or the behaviour of ions existing in metals. A significant number of highly charged particles together make plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields, and this property can be usefully employed in many modern technological devices, such as, plasma televisions or plasma etching."

Astrophysical plasma is mostly found in stars, whose behaviour is much different, than say in the interstellar or intergalactic medium.

The main reference used for this is : Chu, P.K.; Lu, XinPel (2013). Low Temperature Plasma Technology: Methods and Applications. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4665-0990-0. This is unlike your reference, which is frankly more like hearsay.

If you have further issues, please state this here... Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Arianewiki1:, Thank you for your explanation of the history of this debate, of which I was not aware. Happy to read it if you can point me to it.

I did peruse a review and a nice summary of your citation (Low Temperature Plasma Technology: Methods and Applications).

While interesting, its use of "low temperature" plasma seems fully terrestrial and dramatically myopic for use in this article, limited to manufacturing , e.g. "nanomaterials, environmental applications, the treatment of biomaterials, and plasma medicine."

The book seems to ignore Astrophysical plasma, particularly that of interstellar and intergalactic medium.

While Astrophysical plasma may seem mostly obvious in stars, I hope there is no dispute it exists in interstellar and intergalactic mediums. Those interstellar and intergalactic Astrophysical plasmas are unarguably genuinely low temperature and mostly extremely low density.

By leaving the term "highly" I believe this article on Astrophysical plasma improperly ignores and excludes interstellar and intergalactic plasmas. That is why the term "highly" needs to be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Very Strongly disagree. Not all ionised gases are necessarily in a plasma state, so your change now makes this statement now false. 'Highly' rightful infers the difference between simple field-less 'ionised gases' and 'plasma.' e.g. Atoms with one or two electrons removed (ions) is not plasma. Yet all ionised gas can still partially conduct electric current. A plasma is like a super-ionised gas – where significant number of atoms are hot (and energetic) enough where the atomic nucleus can no longer hold their bound electrons.

Also the reference and saying: "The book seems to ignore Astrophysical plasma" is because the book isn't about that topic. There is no dispute of plasma existing in the interstellar and intergalactic mediums, however, they are usually fairly weak (nT - nanotelsla/ order below microgauss) and mostly incoherent, whose present knowledge is mostly theoretical (not observed.) Plasma as a state is dependent on either temperature (electron temperature), local density, or existing magnetic or electric fields. (See Saha ionization equation)They are often termed either as partial or fully ionised plasmas, but glowing HII gas (H-alpha) isn't a plasma. (Interesting the given picture of the Lagoon Nebula is notably HII ionised gas, but he pink colour is not in a plasma state.)

Hence, I have revert your edit, unless you ou can substitute a better word. (My experience suggests differentiating between 'ionized' and 'highly ionised' is typically used. I.e. It takes significantly more energy to remove several electrons than just one electron.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Arianewiki1:, Thank you for your note, but as you will see from the reference below (Cambridge University Press) - it is hard to responsibly call one percent (1.0 %) ionisation, "highly ionised."

While I may agree that a few random ionized particles do not a plasma make, no matter how highly one charges a group of particles, I can not imagine anyone comfortably describing an astrophysical plasma (this article's subject) at 10 degrees Kelvin and maybe a million electrons per cubic millimeter as "highly ionized." - see Plasma Physics: An Introduction to Laboratory, Space, and Fusion Plasmas, A. Piel, 2010, Springer.

Further, Umran S. Inan et al write --

"It turns out that a very low degree of ionization is sufficient for a gas to exhibit electromagnetic properties and behave as a plasma: a gas achieves an electrical conductivity of about half its possible maximum at about 0.1% ionization and had a conductivity nearly equal to that of a full ionized gas at about 1% ionization."

Citation: Cambridge University Press, Umran S. Inan, Marek Gołkowski, Principles of Plasma Physics for Engineers and Scientists, Publ. 2011, ISBN 0521193729, 9780521193726, 284 pages (page 4)

If you wish to describe it better you might employ the idea of "mutual Coulomb interactions" (or "mutual electromagnetic interactions") - rather than "highly charged" - which is ambiguous anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Update Feb 10, 2018: Dear @Arianewiki1:, Its been a month since I provided irrefutable evidence and citations that your "highly ionized" phrase is wrong. I gave you a month to correct that and you have failed to do so. That's not ethical or responsible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs)

@DDilworth: Firstly, please sign all your comments with the four tidles, so we can know who has placed a comment. Secondly, 'demanding' responses is unacceptable behaviour, as it often just angers other Users by encouraging bad faith. Accusing "I gave you a month to correct that and you have failed to do so. That's not ethical or responsible." is frankly utterly despicable behaviour, and defies many basic editing policies, especially PA.

As I've already explained above, "Highly ionised" is correct, as it usefully / generally distinguishes between low ionisation gases, low ionised plasma and truly highly ionised plasmas (as observed in the Sun. Nothing you have given actually "provided irrefutable evidence and citations' e.g. "...conductivity nearly equal to that of a full ionized gas The quote of your on 5th Jan agrees. Clearly, the circumstances of plasma are wide and varied, and depend significantly between pressures, temperatures, and magnetic/electric fields. It is merely written as a simplification. As such, I do not think it should be changed at all. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Some recent revisions and reversions of the lede

As per this edit: [2], Attic Salt suggests that a "not good sentence" and redundancy can be removed, and that an absolute "are" should be replaced with "can be" sot that the lede section closes with the sentence:

"Because the particles are charged, they can be strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields."

On the other hand, as per this edit: [3], Arianewiki1 suggests that editor Attic Salt might have some sort of agenda, reverting the lede section to close with the following two sentences:

"Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields. All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields."

Input is sought to resolve this disagreement and provide a better lede for this article. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Claiming any 'disagreement' is plainly fictitious. If true, then why the need totally remove the statement "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." ? Attic Salt claims the so-called 'absolute' is 'are', but the text plainly says 'are likely', which instantly removes the absolute. Saying 'can be' makes no sense, but that is irrelevant, because action was just delete the text. Simple logic says that statement is plainly true. e.g. Are astrophysical plasmas actually influenced by electric fields? If so, then: How do electric fields manifest in interstellar or intergalactic space exactly? How do we detect or observe these astrophysical plasmas?

References to support this include "Naturally occurring plasmas in space and astrophysical environments are threaded by magnetic fields and exist in a turbulent state."[4] "Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in space, and their role in affecting astrophysical processes is difficult to overestimate."[5]. Even influence of many common problems with astrophysical plasmas are theoretically calculated and modeled via the so-called 'weak magnetic field approximation', where components of gravity fields are expressed in terms of magnetic / electromagnetic fields and are combined into one set of formulae.

The statement in this form was originally added as "All known astrophysical plasmas are influenced by magnetic fields" by ජපස[6] I then changed this [7] to remove the absolute statement by ජපස, which was inherently false. (Oddly, the promotion of the earlier version of this article from 2008 (150 edits ago.) appears here [8], but modifies it to suit their plasma promotion. However, they make no distinction between space plasma and astrophysical plasma. This current WP article has had all the pseudoscience removed.)

Also the FULL statement is : "Much of the baryonic matter of the universe is thought to consist of plasma, a state of matter in which atoms and molecules are so hot, that they have ionized by breaking up into their constituent parts, negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields. All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields."

Why just conveniently remove qualifications to seemingly promote or contest some 'alternate' view or deliberately look for some weakness and then ultimately use it as a wedge? (Again, evidence of an agenda here?) IMO, it is the most crucial point or part of the whole article. How can this ever be construed as 'redundancy'?

• @Attic Salt: Canvassing for support like this [9][10][11] is a dangerous tactic, and can be perceived as WP:VOTESTACK and begins to look like WP:FORUMSHOP or forum shopping. (Especially after the last long Plasma (physics) discussions.) Please Attic Salt stop canvassing others like this. If you need to do this use {{subst:Uw-canvass}} but in doing so, please make sure to select other independent Users more carefully. Just looking at this history and the requesting ten WP:FRS [12] does suggests some possible promoting / searching for Fringe science topics to influence. If so, please stop it.

This is not a strong case. Thanks and WP:Desist. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there are only two participants in this discussion now, I suggest one of you request an uninvolved third opinion at WP:3O. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Sincere thanks for the neutrality in light of Canvassing here, but evidence suggests the 'complaint' as it is, is just frivolous. Attic Salt absolutely knows this.. Rewording the text would have been fine, however, the deletion was just deliberately provocative. So why even do this or even bother with a WP:3O? Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

At least part of the problem with the mentions of electric and magnetic fields (as they presently are in the lede), is that electric and magnetic fields are barely discussed in the interior of the article, same for "electromagnetic" fields, barely discussed (briefly as radiation). And the sentence, "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." is certainly strange. Definitive in one sense ("all"), but qualified in another sense ("likely"). What exactly is "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." supposed to mean? Anyway, Arianewiki1, I don't know why you are so strident with your comments. I assure you, I have not "agenda". Let's get input from others. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I requested input from a 3rd party, as per the suggestion by VQuakr. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably no longer necessary. I have rewritten the questioned text in and made further modifications or reorganisation to improve subject's clarity. Any further issues should be brought up under a new Added topic on this Talkpage. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this talk on the 3O wall. Has the dispute been resolved now? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

More like overwhelmed by a lot of text and hostility. If you can weigh in with comments and suggestions on the lede, that would help. Attic Salt (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a few corrections. I take it neither of you are native English speakers, am I wrong? What else do you think needs attention or clarification User:Attic Salt? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. I have removed all the contentions. There would not have a problem had Attic Salt bothered not to made a direct controversial removal but instead had started a discussion on the talkpage first. Sure you can remove any text that is not cited, but after the recent issues with the Introduction on the plasma (physics) page and the persistent need to remove/avoid pseudo and fringe science, one would think it would have been a prudent and better course of action to discuss before deleting it. Please read WP:Burden again, as it explains how this best works. Also using WP:3O specifically says Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. Where is the discussion / 'disagreement' other than the initial edit comment then? Direct evidence suggests this just looks like a targeted edit - plainly bad faith.

Really. Attic Salt already knows this is a difficult subject to explain simply (from past history) – especially as astrophysical plasma generate its own magnetic field, but in weak or non-coherent or turbulent preexisting magnetic fields, say in intergalactic space, the plasma also interacts with those fields. As the evidence for astrophysical plasmas or these magnetic fields are difficult or impossible to observe or measure, we can simply say "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." Plainly the reasoning is self evident. Yet somehow this is redundant?

Having removed as much of the fringe science in this article, and knowing the inadequacy of the current text (I've added the leading templates and needed citations too) one would think a far more constructive action would be to add new citations or expand the article to improve it. All we get in this instance is someone bemoaning some statement, delete it, then expect everyone else to support their actions? Of the zillions of possible needed improvements to this article so why just target this? All I want to improve articles not just deconstruct them.

To save time and argument, I've just rewitten it to remove these objections. As for If you can weigh in with comments and suggestions on the lede, that would help. Well, instead, how about actually add something new to improve it? Attic Salt any ideas for the main article Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I've already written this prior to the last comment by User:Arianewiki1, so here it is: I'm not sure what's the state of this discussion in light of recent changes, so I'll be brief: Always be careful when ascribing an "agenda" to someone; for caution, stick with Hanlon's razor. I'm not sure why the article is tagged as "fringe", but if any such content made it through it needs to be removed sooner rather than later. User:Attic Salt is right that the sentence was redundant and read oddly. The phrase "All known astrophysical plasmas are influenced by magnetic fields" is by far the most readable than any that have been suggested here. If it is inaccurate, it can easily be qualified as "Most know astrophysical plasmas...". The current phrasing is slightly cumbersome, and not entirely relevant. Here's an alternative for your consideration: An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (highly ionized gas) that occurs in the depth of space, and is studied as part of astrophysics . This is usually distinct from the associated term space plasma, which is plasma that occurs naturally in the Earth's upper atmosphere. Evidence suggests that astrophysical plasmas are a common phenomena in space, with some suggesting that much of matter observable in the universe exists in this state. As atoms and molecules are heated up they become ionized, breaking up to their constituent particles, the negatively-charged electrons and positively-charged ions. These electrically-charged particles are susceptible to influence by local electromagnetic fields: both strong fields generated by stars, or weak fields that exist in star forming regions and the interstellar and intergalactic mediums. Similarly, electric fields are observed in stellar astrophysical phenomena, but are inconsequential in very low density gaseous mediums. François Robere (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I revised the lede accordingly. Attic Salt (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Merci, François Robere. I appreciate you comments.

• The 'agenda' term might be a bit aggressive, but is probable factual, and there is enough evidence to suspect this is true. (short of an ANI)
• Proponents want to stress that plasma (and their fields, and specifically electric fields) dominate gravity, which is not supported by the science community. This statement is being questioned and this is why Attic Salt said Attic Salt suggests that a "not good sentence" and redundancy can be removed, and that an absolute "are" should be replaced with "can be" so that the lede section closes with the sentence: is suspicious.
• The article is tagged as "fringe", mostly comes from previous editing problems with plasma (cosmology), which is considered fringe science, and proponents of that support it. The History section probably still falls within this category.
• In the problematic quote (now deleted), the two previous lines are missing. In context "Much of the baryonic matter of the universe is thought to consist of plasma, a state of matter in which atoms and molecules are so hot, that they have ionized by breaking up into their constituent parts, negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields. All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." Astrophysical plasmas are not influenced by electric fields. If the statement needed clarifying, perhaps All astrophysical plasmas, however, are likely influenced by magnetic fields."

Astrophysical plasma is very complex subject and expressing it simply is fairly hard. I didn't originally introduce this text, but I do understand why it was said.

Appreciate the input. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Good lord. Arianewiki1, if I were a zealous proponent of plasma cosmology, I would probably want to insert "are" as in "all plasmas "are" affected by magnetic fields". But I'm not such a proponent, and so I prefer "all plasmas "can be" affected by magnetic fields". This is the opposite of what a zealous proponent of plasma cosmology would want. To say that plasmas are affected by magnetic fields assumes, of course, that a magnetic field exists, and, really, is of sufficient strength to make a difference. This is why I inserted the qualifier. Okay? Attic Salt (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well at least he had the good grace to spell out the agenda he was concerned about so that you had a chance to defend yourself. Some people just throw the "agenda" accusation at other editors as a sort of last resort defense mechanism (squid ink) ruining any chance of collaborative discussion without spelling out the agenda they are referring to and without giving other editors the chance to put such fears to rest as you have now been able to Attic. I hope that the mistrust is resolved noe and you can work well together from now on. Two heads are always better than one. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible related phenomena

"Much interested in active galactic nuclei, because astrophysical plasmas could be directly related to the plasmas studied in the laboratory"

Does anyone have an idea what that is supposed to mean? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been pondering the same question. You don't have to go to a galactic center to find something interesting for a laboratory plasma, nor, even, find some relevance for fusion experiments (which is what the rest of the sentence says). I've refrained from fixing this sentence until I better understood what it was supposed to mean. Attic Salt (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Read this.[13] Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The original source of this comment is here. 'Fast Plasma Processes in Active Galactic Nuclei' [14][15]. The laboratory work appear at the end. " This review ends with some reflections on future research directions." An earlier origin of the idea is "Plasma diagnostics in the Active Galactic Nuclei environment." [16] and "On the exclusion of intracluster plasma from active galactic nuclei-blown bubbles" [17]. (IEEE articles are often perceived as dubious with astrophysical phenomena) Strangely, the Active galactic nucleus article does not mention plasma, which is why I added needed citation and considered it mostly as mere pseudoscience. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence, as written, is incomprehensible. Attic Salt (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So what. All the links given here explains the sentence. If you don't understand it then leave the text alone. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's right, I don't understand it, and I've left the text alone. Do you understand it? Attic Salt (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do, but I'll not edit it else to be accused of WP:OR. Articles are not just my opinion or knowledge. BTW, the line Much interested in active galactic nuclei,... applies to 2006 not 2018, though the laser experiment is good evidence of the reality of plasma turbulence within active galaxy nuclei (AGN). This is likely caused by the interaction of accelerated hot gas flowing into SMBHs. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lede

Recent additions by editor Arianewiki1, mostly here: [18], have given us a last paragraph in the lede that details, essentially, what "astrophysical plasma" is not: a list that includes "... strongly ionised plasma on the Sun and in its atmosphere, or the solar wind interactions with Earth's magnetic field, causing the aurora. This can also be extended to the Earth's upper atmosphere, other planetary atmospheres[10] and their magnetospheres (aeronomy), or when monitoring interplanetary space weather." I suggest that this is excessively detailed. I also note this content about what is not "astrophysical plasma" is not found in much detail in the body of the article (and where it is, this might be reduced). Thoughts? Attic Salt (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the detail really needs to stay. Space plasma was merged into astrophysical plasma / under this discussion.Talk:Astrophysical plasma#Scope of "space plasmas" (top item on this page.) Somehow, space physics was merged and redirected to astrophysical plasma (I'm unable to find when this was done), so this would now make it relevant. All I did was move this text to the 3rd paragraph. Say this anyway saves time in future edits not understanding the distinction between the two astrophysical and space plasma (It is not a universal term, hence, "is often made distinct from." (You for instance recent changed the text in space plasma to be only about the Earth's atmosphere, when it is in fact it applies to the Solar system.

As for "I also note this content about what is not "astrophysical plasma" is not found in much detail in the body of the article." Well the section 'Observing and studying astrophysical plasma' for this needs to be expanded (The added tag requests it.)

I'm as also getting pretty tired of the persistent questioning of my edits in the related topics on plasma. Since you started here all you've done is complain about structure of the Introductory text but yet continue and fail to add anything actual new or sourced material. I've bend over backwards to get this text up to scratch for days now, and it still not good enough (according to you.) After this edit [19], simply avoiding consensus, any wonder why I'm cheesed off.

Again, as I said before. "All we get in this instance is someone bemoaning some statement, delete it, then expect everyone else to support their actions? Of the zillions of possible needed improvements to this article so why just target this? All I want to improve articles not just deconstruct them. As for If you can weigh in with comments and suggestions on the lede, that would help. Well, instead, how about actually add something new to improve it? Attic Salt any ideas for the main article?"

Clearly nothing seems to satisfy you. No inkling of praise or encouragement, just continued grinding away to make editing as miserable and difficult as possible. Why is that? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If "space plasma" was merged into "astrophysical plasma", then shouldn't we be defining "astrophysical plasma" to include "space plasma"? Right now, the first sentence of the lead seems to exclude this, saying: "An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (highly ionized gas) that occurs beyond the Solar system". Attic Salt (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Please stop arguing on esoteric subtleties or minutia just to trip up other editors and deconstructing everything. The article says "astrophysical plasma", but the reason "space plasma" was added to just make the related articles less complicated. (It is not my choice.) All that is being done is to explain the differences. Space plasma is under Space physics, which is linked as "Astrophysical plasma is often made distinct from the associated term space plasma (as space physics)." This is important distinction. Paragraph 3 sums up article Space physics. It is also further divided for Earth and atmospheric interaction as Aeronomy - at least the plasma side - which is why I persist in mentioning it.

I have spent much time removing all the fringe science / pseudoscience from these articles, via consensus so that it makes some sense and not being disjointed. The attempt is to stop fringe reentering the subject matter by those like the supporting plasma cosmologists - specifically the scaling and hypothetical 'triple-jump' that plasma cosmology relies upon. (The fields and current become weaker and less coherent on larger scales, not bigger. Hence it is rejected.)The only real difference between astrophysical plasma and space plasma is terminology e.g. how it is measured and studied: theory for the former, against in situ physical measures by satellites and rockets nearer the Earth.

Please, if you do really want to be helpful, the Main body of the text should be expanded. If you feel you don't have the competence to do so, then leave this alone. Appreciate the desire to want improve articles and grammar, making articles clearer, but avoid again changing its context. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)