User talk:Mgmirkin/Archive 1

Image tagging for Image:PIA08598 modest.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:PIA08598 modest.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions[edit]

Nice additions to Electric universe (concept), Electrical Discharge Machining in Space and Arachnoid (astrogeology). I think that the article on "Electrical Discharge Machining in Space" may have difficulties from Wiki's policy on No Original Research on the grouds that there is no established subject, and no peer reviewed material.

I also think there might be problems with so many references to the Thunderbolts site, which technically isn't a credible source. --Iantresman 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Well, not quite sure how to use "Talk" but I suppose my response would be that I think the EDM in Space article is a useful article, to distinguish it from laboratory EDM. Granted, it may not be "complete" yet, but there is always room for improvement. Perhaps a tag so anyone who HAS references can provide them?

Judging from the relatively deletionist tones on the "Article for Deletion" page, this obviously didn't happen. So much for the "spirit of cooperation" wikipedia is supposed to be renowned for... Had hoped people would actually offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Apparently NOT! *Annoyed* Mgmirkin 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a fine line between promoting an idea and going too far. I hope that I haven't crossed any boundaries. I've tried to present everything as being from a specific perspective, and to not that it specifically pertains to the EU model's view, I suppose I could be more explicit in stating that this information may be contested by mainstream science, thus should be considered hearsay until sufficient references are made.

The problem I'm running into is that I wish to more completely spell out the Electric Universe model, but many terms used by EU aren't available on wikipedia. So, in order to logically discuss EU, certain entries that don't exist must be made and defined. Hence the rub. The specifics don't necessarily pertain ONLY to the EU model, but may be discussed or fleshed out in more general terms. So, I'd hate to just built everything in to the Electric Universe Model article, when the physical premises really should be separate articles from the model... Hope that made sense.

In any event, I've been reading horrendous amounts of information about the EU model and am trying to synthesize it into the wikipedia entry, which was woefully lacking. Glad you've enjoyed my thoroughness in explaining the position of the EU model.

I've seen that there are articles on EDM, and birkeland currents, and charge separation, and double layering, but none specifically pertaining to them in space. If we're going to talk about the EU model, we have to define its concepts as a foundation. I have no problem with a disclaimer that the veracity of specific points is in dispute between EU and the "classical" model. If nothing else that simply notes that more quality scientific research is needed on both sides of the fence.

However, since alternate theories (even moderately well researched / thought-out ones) are de facto choked out of mainstream press it is difficult to find specific references. But I'll try to track some down. I'd, of course, appreciate anyone else who knows of references pro or con to add them to any article(s) I may have added that they feel are insufficiently supported by the links and images provided. Considering the volume of knowledge I've put out there, exhaustiveness is... Difficult. ;o] Mgmirkin 08:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyance[edit]

Why do people keep editing my posts to remove my comments? This is getting irritating! Specifically: Mamers Vallis, I edited it to note the leading theories on formation. I also put in a note and refernces on an alternate theory, but it keeps getting taken out. That is very frustrating. I even tried wording it neutrally, simply tha an alternate theory was proposed by Ralph Juergens that there could be electrical causation (I didn't even mention the Electric Universe witch hunt catalyst). It's was STRICTLY an alternate theory. Nobody know how or why this was formed. I was simply stating one additional "theory" as to why in very general terms (edited back from a longer bit that was a more biased notation; specifically edited to try to REMOVE bias and simply state there's a theory, who stated it, and givel inks to related articles written by Juergens). I don't see why this violates Wikipedia policy. I don't think that the last form the comments took violated the POV exclusion, or neutrality. It was only stating there was a theory, and who wrote the theory. It's no better or worse than any of the other theories (I personally put more credence in it than the other explanations). Anyway, this is VERY frustrating Mgmirkin

Interesting article from Nasa[edit]

I guess I might as well say I'm an EU supporter. I'm not 100% sold on everything they say, I prefer to do additional research. But an umber of the articles on thunderbolts.info have been quite convincing and HAVE expanded my knowledge of the universe.

That said, the below article is quite interesting:

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

It appears to confirm exactly what the EU theorists and proponents have been saying for a long time.

Specifically, the statement by the researcher:

( 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. )

So, what doe this say, exactly? It says that they were observing dust devils (using LIDAR as mentioned earlier in the article). It also says that predictions did not match observed results.

Specifically, it was expected that in the traditional model of dust devil formation, a funnel is caused by high winds, whipping up dust which somehow gets electrically charged and then somehow the charge causes convection and somehow causes collimation?

What did they observe? Well, they observed "for a substantial part of its lifetime" (IE most of it), that the dust devil was detectable by LIDAR, but there was no dust ejected into the air nor swirling around doing whatever it does to "acquire charge." Rather the structure was present, and verifiable/observable via LIDAR in its true form, a collimated filamentary structure. Let me repeat that, a collimated filamentary structure WITHOT DUST was observable via LIDAR for a "substantial portion of its lifetime." IE, it is formed (filamentary and collimated) WITHOUT the action of swirling dust.

It appears that scientists (theorists sitting in a room somewhere making stuff up, not actual observers in the field doing what science is SUPPOSED TO DO by OBSERVING phenomena and theorizing from there) theories have cause and effect precisely backward. They theorized that high winds caused dust to be lifted into the air, and via mechanical action somehow charged the particles (before electricity was discovered in dust devils they thought it was simply some mechanical action on its own) which then caused the vortex to constrict into a collimated structure...

Observations appear to suggest that the opposite is true: The collimated filamentary structure with electrical characterization exists WELL BEFORE any dust is ever kicked (machined) into the air. Further, a filamentary structure may NEVER get strong enough to actually kick dust into the air in any meaningful way. So, then how do we explain this oddity of science? We still have electrical characterization and EM interference, and collimated filamentary structure... Now, what does this resemble... Hmm...

Auroral-like Birkeland currents created by scientist Kristian Birkeland in his terrella.

Yup, you guessed it... Slow electric discharge phenomena. C'mon, you gotta' love the simplicity. Obviously needs more support/research, but still... You have to admit it's somewhat compelling to see that the collimated structure with electrical features exists independently of any notable swirling dust being lifted off the ground. Mgmirkin 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update (8-31-06 M.G.): Having done a bit more reading, I've made a few more assumptions and links between electrical phenomena and vortical weather systems. The long and short of it is this: Lightning forms, in overly basic terms when a negatively charged Stepped leader descends from a cloud, and a positively charged Positive streamer ascends from the ground. When they connect the end result is an ionized channel through which current can flow. Directly following that is the Return stroke which carries much of the electrical load / current. However there may also be additional strokes along the same channel preceded by additional Dart leaders much like but weaker than the initial Stepped leader. Mgmirkin 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we look at Landspouts, we see a very similar construction/execution, same with tornadoes, and waterspouts (and I ASSUME dust devils though they tend to form on clear days without a visible cloud cover). The process appears to the the same, you generally get a swirl at the base, moving upward, and a swirl at the top moving downward. Where they connect, you have a completed funnel/vortex formation. As it has been shown, this formation displays electrical properties (recorded for dust devils, wouldn't doubt if they see the same thing with tornados and water spouts if/when they've looked; if they haven't they should, they might be shocked), including emission of high energy light (x-rays, etc.). Basically, you get a double-layered electrical discharge like those seen in the auroral zones around the poles, and the double layering seen in plasmas in the lab. The long and short of it, is that the formative processes appear to be much the same. Whereas lightning is a catastrophic discharge, tornadic systems generall exhibit a much slower discharge. I wonder out of personal curiousity what would happen to a tornado if its discharge were somehow channeled into a catastrophic discharge. Similar to the Fulgurite experiments and artistry pioneered by Allan McCollum. Would it kill the tornado by sapping its powering force, assuming it's powered by electricity? Who knows. But, it's worth investigating. Mgmirkin 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

entirely figured uot how they work. I guess I have more reading to do. Go fig. One of these days I'll dive in and sort it all out. ;o] I've posted the article on the talk page. w00t! j/k Mgmirkin 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nowadays I'm more comfortable with edit vs discussion pages, I'm actively seeking out more citable materials, and have generally acclimated to the WP culture... Ref tags are old hat now. Still learning a bit of the more obscure culture... It's a learning curve, and occasionally folks are less than forthcoming to newcomers about how/why they do what they do. But I think I've made some good contributions now to a number of articles, including: Martian spiders, Martian Spherules, Electric universe (concept), Planetary Nebula M2-9/Little Dumbbell Nebula/NGC 6302/Butterfly Nebula (disambiguation), and a few others (despite a rocky start on my first article or two...). Anyway, hope folks appreciate my contributions. Mgmirkin 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Sorry Michael, I missed your comments here as I forgot to "watch" your page. Thanks for your message. The article on dust devils is interesting, and it is suggested that they can produce quite significant electric fields.
As for whether dust devils requires dust to generate electricity, of whether electricity creates Martian hurricans that pick up dust, I think we can only speculate.

We don't need to speculate. Thunderbolts.info has done it for us: NASA on Martian Dust Devils— “They’re Electrified!” It is quite simple to see the electrical characterization of the base of the dust devil on Mars. There's actually an animated GIF floating around somewhere that ties together about 10-20 frames of this and shows the course of it. After watching it, you can't help but see electrical interaction as it flares up and dies down then REALLY flares up in a rather brilliant flash at its base (the flash takes up half the in-frame dust devil, I think you can see it in the thunderbolts article in the last frame of the 3). Mgmirkin 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not for us to judge whether dust devils are significant for inclusion in the Electric Universe article, unless there are comments from citable Electric Universe sources.

You opened the door (thanks! such a nice gentleman. *wink*). I'll walk through it:

Thunderbolts.info is one of the leading (prolific) proponents of the model, and they have a number of EU interpretation articles on the subject of electric weather. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Mgmirkin 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I should mention Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Juergens and Halton Arp on my main page.

True, but on reconsideration... Perhaps then the list becomes a bit too long and includes the evil of "controversy" which may or may not be your intent... ;o] Hehe. Mgmirkin 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments above, it's very difficult to edit controversial articles, and have the comments remain unedited. Your best option is to base comments on citable sources. If you can find an Electric Universe source that says the Santa Claus makes thunderbolts, that's information that is valid for inclusion if you can describe it neutrally. But if you find a 3rd party source that proves the Electric Universe theory, in your opinion, then it is probably inadissible.

But, if you find a 3rd party article (by Nasa 1) that seems to support the claim (in your opinion), but you also happen to find a very similar article on a leading EU proponents's site (Thunderbolts.info 2), apparently based on the article that you were looking at. What then? Ohh, right... Admissible? Methinks so! Mgmirkin 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you have further comments on the Electric Universe article, that you place them on its Talk page. --Iantresman 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again[edit]

Still new to wikipedia (obviously; please excuse protocol foibles). Haven't gotten quite the hang of the relationship between edit pages, talk pages, etc. Also, the reference tags seem a bit, umm, confusing? Still haven't

The deletion[edit]

My comment about "will never meet them" is based on the style the article was written in. The style was criticized right from the beginning when, as Crabapplecore said, the article itself says that it is "speculative in nature." The point is, the article was really an essay, not an encyclopedia article on a topic. BlueValor said the article was sourced, but a sourced essay is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. No one else supported the article. If you'd like, I'd be happy to undelete the article to User:Mgmirkin/Electrical Discharge Machining in Space, so you can work on the article to try to bring it in line with Wikipedia policies. In theory, the subject could be an encyclopedia article... however, I think your efforts would be better spent elsewhere. For instance, perhaps you could become an editor of Electric universe (concept) and work on expanding the section that covers the article you were working on. (This is a common mistake with new users: you don't have to make your own article: you can edit articles we already have... in fact, it's a better idea; did you notice that your topic was covered there before writing your article?) Let me add the following: if you ever get involved in another deletion, limit yourself to making one or two comments. Your behavior damaged your cause quite a bit; basically you were just making it impossible for anyone to agree with you because they'd have to be too expert and read too much stuff, whereas if someone DISagreed with you, they just had to look at the top of the nomination and the article. As for people being in a helpful mood: it's unlikely anyone would try to help when your question of "what did I do wrong" is (1) buried in a huge amount of text and (2) looks rhetorical. Okay, that's my general response. I'll answer any questions you have if you can keep the total question to two lines. As a general answer to your confusions, I'd say read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, that's a good starting point, and read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT to get an idea of our core content policies. WP:RS may help also, and in terms of the deletion of articles you may want to read WP:DP, our deletion policy. Also, browse through some featured articles to see how these kinds of issues are handles in our best articles. Mango juice^talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I'll let it lie, as is. I have a copy of the article that I saved, or a recent revision or two anyway. I might work on it some more, though... Not quite sure about the undelete to User:Mgmirkin/Electrical Discharge Machining in Space bit. What would that mean? That somehow it's "my" personal article (which, really it's not; granted I wrote it, but it's a concept discussed at length in the EU model so it's just a restatement of what they're presenting). So would that like be a sub-page of my user page or something? Just not quite sure how that would work. I guess you could, if you wanted to? Mgmirkin 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I HAVE been editing the EU model page. A few of the extensive "anonymous" structural revisions were me, before I'd learned that wikipedia likes to log you out when you close firefox for any length of time and you have to sign back in. I've also been adding resources, links, and lately some extra notability in the form of papers published dating back to 1986 and possibly earlier. (Did I see EDM in the EU article? Umm, yeah, I WROTE IT, or most of it, though I'm sure it's been edited a bit since then. Along with Z-Pinch in Space, structural edits, etc, etc. It may have accidentally been anonymized. I didn't go into EDM at length in the EU article.) However, the reason I made it a separate article was that when peopl referenced EDM in the EU article, it takes you to a page about EDM in the lab on a very microscopic scale. And to some degree I feel that's insufficient for talking about EDM in the sense that the EU model discusses it on the COSMIC scale (or at the minimum the solar/planetary scale). Hence a separate article. I also didn't want to make 50% of the EU article strictly about EDM in space. Though I suppose I could do that. I just htink if it gets too long it would overshadow the other aspects. For that reason I felt it was more appropriate to have a separate article and pay a shorter service to it in the EU model article. Plus the EDM in space sufficiently differentiates the subject matter from EDM in the lab, or in a production setting in factories. Anyway, that was my reasoning behind the article.

I guess I'm still not clear on the hair you're slicing very thinly saying it's an essay and not an article. Again, I've asked folks for constructive criticism or help making it conform to policy, but everyone was too busy bashing the EU model's credibility (you're not supposed to write opinions about things, just present the thing itself, and they seem to have lost sight of that) rather than attempting to help make the article better. So, in that regard, I was the only one trying to improve the article. And for the record I did try to take out as much of the biased statements as I could and just present thing as "this is what they believe, here's where they say it" type stuff. And we're not trying to validate the underlying theory, just make sure that it's presented neutrally. Granted belief is from a POV, but as long as the belief is presented neutrally...? Where's the problem. I think people are getting group POV and author POV confused. They seemed to be implying that I was trying to promote my own POV, whereas I was mainly reporting on the POV/belief of the group in question. IT's a fine hair to split, but I think it's one that NEEDS to be split. Cultural anthropology is about neutrally presentign the beliefs of a specific group of people. It's about presenting their cultural mores, but without interpretation from the observer. Perhaps more direct quotes were needed, and citations. But rather than putting in a *fact* tag for "citation needed" people just bashed the EU model and left it at that. Not exactly "ivory tower" behavior. I did try to respond to specific criticisms by noting who said what and where in the discussion re: deletion. Can't say I didn't try to present some evidence. ;o]

I'd still be interested to know how one splits the mighty fine hair between essay and article though...? If it's about citations, I cited who said what and where about the specific belief (as authoritative sources as are available within the EU community). Mgmirkin 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case you didn't notice, I tend to be verbose. Sometimes it can't be avoided, as I'm trying to lay out my reasoning behind a thing. There, a short statement... Happy? ;o]

Ohh, and I have been reading NPOV, NOR, Verifiability, etc. And there are some definite gray areas. Specifically, how does Wikipedia regard belief systems? IE, can a "belief" be presented and still be NPOV? If so how. If not, why is every article on religions, cultures, etc. allowable, seeing as they're from a specific POV (that of the specific group whose tenet it is)? Mgmirkin 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I liked/disliked your statement about my "behavior" (note: I didn't do anything wrong, in my opinion, just stated my views in relation to why the article should stay and what I've been doing to try to fix it, so that seems like a fairly loaded/pejorative characterization). I guess it just shows that people on here are, how shall I put it, "too lazy to read?" So, basically, you're saying that I provided TOO MUCH information in defense of the position and it was opposed due to a dearth of information rather than anything LACKING? It's a sad day when people oppose something just because they're too lazy to READ the releated resources. I mean, that's akin to saying "thanks for the resources, I'm just not even going to read them and delete it anyway." And to be frank, that kind of pisses me off. I mean it's noot just "I read it and disagree" it like "I'm not even going to read it because I feel it's beneath me to actually try to understand your point of view." I mean, if I took the time to READ THE ARTICLES and offer my opinion based upon them, the LEAST someonec else can do is to read the same articles and THEN offer an opinion, rather than simply being dismissive and saying "I don't care whether you proved your point or not." That's just dismissive and rude.

Seriously, how can someone offer an opinion on what I've said unless they've read it? To me that just attests to laziness. If I had to get off my butt and defend my article, essay, whatever, the least people can do is to actually get off their own butts and read what I've semi-cogently (if maybe at too much length) written. I mean if they're going to put me to the standard of finding citations or making cogent arguments I'm happy to rise to the challenge and put my thoughts out there. But if they're going to ask that of me and then dismissively wave it off without even reading it. They've just wasted not only their time, but mine. And laziness annoys me. As well as hypocrisy. And I guess this last bit was a bit of a rant, so I'll end there. But it needed to be said.

Refutation by too much argument in favor... That's a new one by me. I'll have to remember and cherish this one. ;o] j/k *sigh* I'm done. Mgmirkin 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, not mad though, just frustrated, maybe a little annoyed. Just needed to vent. Guess that's what talk pages are for, eh? ;o] Mgmirkin 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you didn't do anything wrong in the sense of misbehaving, I just think your.. um... verbosity was hurting your cause. I think you are the most verbose user I've ever come across on wikipedia, actually. To answer your question about beliefs, check out Xenu. It's a featured article about a myth that's important to Scientology. As a featured article, it's one of the best examples of encyclopedia articles Wikipedia has produced. So, perhaps, follow that example (and there are probably many others specifically about beliefs). But in my opinion, there's a key difference between an article about a "belief" and an article about an "idea." The difference between a belief and an idea is that a belief has to have a believer, whereas an idea is an idea regardless of who does or doesn't accept it.

Point taken. Verbose is Verboten {sp?} ... I'll take a look at the article.

As to "The difference between a belief and an idea is that a belief has to have a believer, whereas an idea is an idea regardless of who does or doesn't accept it" I guess I still have to take issue with a might fine hair being split here... So, in your model, which is better an idea or a belief? The hair is split mighty thin. In this case, we can rightly say that there are "believers" in EU cosmology and/or Plasma Cosmology or in other alternative cosmologies (scientific, mythological, astronomical, etc). So, I guess my point here is, if we have "believers" (as you put it), IE EU proponents and theorists, and we have a "belief," IE EDM in Space, how is this any less a "belief" than the Virgin Mary, Jormungand, or the Big Bang? Since the belief DOES have believers who are vocal in their own way as thoroughly noted from their own resources in their own words, it seems to satisfy the "belief" criteria. So, I submit again, why is one belief lauded over another? Is it simply vocality? Does vocality trump notability of the belief? If so, how can we call this "belief warring" NPOV if one side is more vocal than the other, thus gets the other side "deleted"? Just wondering. For claiming neutrality, Wikipedia seems to exercise its deletionist powers rather liberally over certain "unpopular" but still "notable"/"citable" stuff. Just seems to an outsider as though NPOV isn't quite as hallowed as Wikipedia claims, or else all things would be treated equally so long as it's presented neutrally. Mgmirkin 07:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take transubstantiation, for instance. If you try to present it as a belief, you might write "Catholics believe that by transubstantiation, wine and holy wafers become the blood and body of Christ." This statement can't really be backed up very well. What is its claim? It seems to say that all Catholics, or maybe most Catholics believe this statement. But that probably isn't true; on the contrary, it's likely that only the very religious and theological of Catholics actually believe this, others who are well-informed know about it, and a lot of them probably don't believe it. Even if someone gave that statement as fact in a secondary source, even a reliable one, it's hard to rely on it, because they can't possibly have solid evidence for that.. it would be better to say "Johnson's guide to Catholicism says that Catholics believe ..." Maybe the intent of the sentence, on the other hand, is to say that transubstantiation is a belief of Catholicism. THAT is verifiable, and true, and has been written about by people acknowledged as experts/authorities on Catholicism. But the sentence didn't get that idea across properly. It would have been better to say "Transubstantiation is the belief that sacramental wine and holy wafers become the blood and body of Christ in communion, and is an important belief of Catholicism." But now the sentence is really written from another perspective: that we're writing about the idea first and foremost, rather than the belief of it. Ok, I have to stop there, because I got distracted and don't have time to go on. Check out WP:NPOV, though, I think it talks about the issue more. Mango juice^talk 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again this seems to be wielding semantics as a weapon. I mean, if I wanted to I could go through any article with semantic comb and probably challenge just about any and every line of it for some minor foible.

The intent of the sentence is fairly clear, and most reasonable people would understand what the author was trying to say, and what the point was regardless of whether it's phrased as "Catholics believe" or "it's a belief of Catholicism." Catholicism is by nature composed of the beliefs of Catholics. Granted, not every Catholic may be a "good little Catholic" and believe it. But a couple of folks who fall out with the church does not mean that the belief isn't part of Catholic doctrine. Also, beliefs are generally those espoused by the "authoritative"/"notable" sources of a doctrine (Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc.), NOT the laity. Granted popular support of a doctrine lends it additional credence, but in the case of the church, the "church fathers" tend to be the only "notable" sources for the most part in terms of official doctrine.

The same is generally true of most belief systems. The "beliefs" are handed down to the laity by the founders, theorists, or other "authoritative" sources. In that regard, it is the sources of the most notable "authoritative" sources within the movement that are the ones that should be lent most credence. And I tried to include those specific sources as citations. Granted, they're not peer reviewed, but if we're not doing OR, then we're NOT verifying the underlying principles as valid, simply what the belief is and who believes it, and who the authoritative sources are. I think I pretty well did that. But anywho... ;o] Such is life.

My main point is that it seems like most deletionists are delete-happy and rather than changing the wording to something more "semantically-politically-correct" they just use the semantic difference to argue that the entire sentence or paragraph is just WRONG and figuratively put a giant X through it and delete it. Maybe not on the Catholicism page, but you get the idea.

Semantics should NOT be a weapon for those who wish to censor. In my opinion deletion made on semantic ground (and I'm talking any article on wikipedia, not just the one that I was interested in which I'll let go for now and concentrate on making the EU article better) are made in BAD FAITH, because they make no efforts at GOOD FAITH, IE, trying to remedy the perceived erroneous phrasing, which may only need one or two words corrected to make the entire paragraph or article valid. Rather they simply throw out the baby with the bath water, to the detriment of anyone who mimght have come to wikipedia looking SPECIFICALLY FOR that information. But the deletionists who somehow think it's not worthwhile manage to push their own POV to get it deleted. And it's usually over some semantic foible or hair splitting. Like saying something is and "idea" but doesn't rise to the level of a "belief," but their definition of a belief is met b ythe item in question that was deleted for not qualifying as a belief.

I may have initially pushed a POV (though I did actively try to remedy it with citations and alternate perspective; I'll admit it had a ways to go, but it WAS well on its way and light years away from the original version), but to be fair, the detractors were pushing their POV just as hard. Sadly they won... *Sigh* Live and learn... Give me a month and I'll probably have forgotten about it. ;o] I hate lingering bad feelings, so I tend to dismiss them easily. Why keep hostility? I see no reason for it. Mgmirkin 08:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Bites![edit]

Okay, maybe I should be more precise. I'm new here, for the moment... So, I' mstill learning a lot about policy, and wikipedia tenets. Man, someome should do a cultural anthropological study on wikipedias and write it up as an article. I'd love to see it.

But I guess I'm starting to feel a bit Bitten in some regards. In the above few notes, I guess one can see the feeling of having been bitten. IE, older wikipedians have been relatively NOT HELPFUL to the newer wikipedians. And folks should really be nice to the newcomers, lest the newcomers get discouraged and not feel like posting anymore, or begin to cnesor themselves and their expression in way that are NOT beneficial to wikipedia.

Obviously the new wikipedians have a duty to wikipedia in much the same way. IE, we should be learning from our elders, reading the resources they give us, seeking out the resources they somehow DON'T give us, etc.

I guess that's my 2c. I just feel like folks should be more cooperative rather than confrontational/jaded. And if someone asks folks for help, they should at least consider actually helping. That's the only way that folks will get better rather than simply walking off and saying "screw this" which DOES hurt the community. But, I'm not much of one for sulking, so I'll just leave it at that. And I AM reading and learning A LOT every day, so I'm sure my stuff will improve, despite being bitten. Mgmirkin 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hi Mgmirkin, I saw your requests for citations on WIMP and MACHO. I definitely agree those articles sorely need citations. Any help in tracking them down would be great, and even just adding {{fact}} where appropriate is useful. To be frank, I found your attitude on those two talk pages rather off / off-putting, as they can give the impression of being directed more at promoting particular (fringe) ideas than improving the articles. However, I took a look at your contributions, and I can see that you have been doing some really great work, for instance in Planetary Nebula M2-9 and in cleaning up lightning-related articles. Welcome, and keep up the good work. I'm sorry to hear about your getting spammed or harassed. That is definitely unacceptable (and must be very frustrating). --Reuben 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, was frustrating... For now, Ian has disabled the feature that led to the spamming until some kind of work-around/protection against it can be implemented. Yeah, I cleaned up the Butterfly Nebula namespace a bit too a while back (since several articles seemed to use the term indiscriminately). As to fringe science, I have certain leanings, though of late I've tried to not let them too badly influence me. ;o] I'm just not caught up in the whole "dark matter must explain everything" commotion. I tend toward the belief that Arp has sufficiently demonstrated that redshift=/= distance for all cases. In which case, we need to go back to basics. *IF* a foundational assumption (like redshift ALWAYS == distance) is wrong, then that may lead to the death of certain other dearly held beliefs. If we mistakenly place something far away that shouldn't be and thus misjudge its luminosity, mass, energy output. You can see the problem. Suddenly "dark matter" must be invented to salvage theories that no longer fit more careful observations. Again, it's a big IF. I realize that. But I also think it hasn't been paid sufficient attention and NEEDS further investigation. Sadly, I'm not likely the one to do it. ;o] And even if I was, it wouldn't be permissible on WP, due to WP:NOR. ;o] Anywho... Mgmirkin 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist[edit]

Goading someone when they're down, like this, doesn't break any rules but it doesn't cast you in a very favorable light. You might consider withdrawing your remarks and especially forgoing snide headings like "Typical..." Raymond Arritt 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't my intent to goad or whatever. Perhaps I'll change the heading... It just seems odd that he's deleted a number of comments by various folks who've offered constructive criticism or whatnot and generally only left the comments of folks who've left praise. I really did just kind of want to leave some constructive criticism (already had, but it was deleted w/o comment or reasons given). As I've said, I don't really harbor hard feelings, but do feel there are some places SA could improve (or other points of view he could try seeing things from) if he comes back, which was why I left the original comments to begin with. Anywho, thanks for the feedback. Mgmirkin 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using diffs to verify that what you say is true before you make accusations. Ante lan ^talk 00:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey! I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying I left him some feedback on his talk page and for some reason it got deleted w/o notice or comment (seemed odd, wasn't sure why), so I left some new comments (aiming for constructive criticism; despite a poor choice of words in the title that may have been unfair, which I've subsequently edited down, on reflection). That's the sum total of it (nothing more nefarious intended). In the end it's his talk page and I guess he can do with it as he pleases, and I'll leave it at that. Mgmirkin 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not plasma, gas[edit]

On both chromosphere and photosphere you replaced references to gas in those zones with "plasma". Unfortunately, those zones are too cool to be plasma. Plasmas exist at roughly the temperature of ionization for hydrogen (which is what stars are mostly made out of). This temperature is roughly 140,000 K. Chromospheres and photospheres are not nearly that hot. Corona and stellar cores are, however.

Best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Formed at high temperatures when electrons are stripped from neutral atoms, plasmas are common in nature. For instance, stars are predominantly plasma." Plasmas exist in a range of temperature and density regimes, according to recent research.
http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasma4StateMatter.html
140,000K is, what 1.4x10^5 Kelvin, you didn't mention density... Any ideas? It does have an effect on where on the plasma scale it falls. If it's (with very rough numbers) 10^8-ish particles / m^3, then it falls in the "solar wind" range of plasma. If it's about 10^15, it's closer to a neon sign. If it's closer to 10^20, it's a bit nearer lightning...
But, as you say, it's cooler in the chromosphere / photosphere:
The Sun - Introduction, World Book at NASA - Sun.
Photosphere: ~4500-6500 Kelvin. Chromosphere: ~4500 to 20,000 Kelvin. Corona: ~500,000+ Kelvin (up to several [1-6] million Kelvin)
So, what are the particle densities involved? Not able to find reliable references at the drop of a dime, on that, for some reason... Photosphere article lists unreferenced [not necessarily accurate / reliable] density of (2x10^(-4))kg/m^3 (Not quite sure how kg/m^3 translated into "charged particles / m^3"; how many charged particles are in a kilogram? But it's appx 0.0002 kg/m^3)
This will probably get tedious really quickly:
Proton: 1.672 621 71(29) × 10^−27 kg (appx 1.673 x 10^(-27) kg). If we divide the 0.0002 kg by the weight of the proton, we'd get appx 11,954,572,624,028,690,974,297.6689 protons / m^3 (if it were only protons)
Electron: 9.109 382 15(45) × 10^–31 kg (appx 9.109 x 10^(-31) kg). If we divide the 0.0002 kg by the weight of the electron, we get 219563069491711494126687891.09672 electrons / M^3 (if it was composed solely of electrons).
However, if Hydrogen is the most common element, then we'd figure half and half, appx (trying to recall if Hydrogen has a Neutron...?) Hmm, I'm amused... hydrogen: "Stars in the main sequence are mainly composed of hydrogen in its plasma state." (article as of about 8:00 PST on 2-11-08, just for reference.) I assume, according to you, they mean in the core and/or corona, but nowhere else? Isotopes of hydrogen: Seems Protium is its most common isotope w/o a neutron. Good, makes things easier on the math. (I think I managed to screw it up and then correct myself anyway).
So, what does that give us? Let's see, if we're assuming half and half protons and electrons in the photosphere:
Protons: appx ~== 5,977,286,312,014,345,487,148.8344 / m^3
Electrons: appx ~== 109,781,534,745,855,747,063,343,945.5484 / m^3
I think it's about 11,953,921,767,642,669,114,925 particles / m^3. That's about 1.1953922x10^22 {I think?}.
Okay, I'll concede you the Photosphere (though it's pretty close the that dividing line, and I wouldn't be utterly surprised if some portions of it were weakly ionized; even weakly ionized plasmas (collisional plasmas) can display, on the whole, effects attributed to plasma; not to mention that temperature is only an AVERAGE, and there might be regions a bit higher or lower, especially with the sun convecting and whatnot).
From the NASA Worldbook on the sun, I gather the temperature of the chromosphere is in the range of 5,000 - 20,000 (5x10^3 to 2x10^4) Kelvin and the density is about 10 billion to 100 billion particles / cm^3. That means that for one cubic meter it's a million cubic centimeters (100cm x 100cm x 100cm). So take the particle density per cubic centimeter and multiply it by a million. That's about 10^16 to 10^17 particles per cubic meter.
So, where does that put us on the chart? Somewhere between flames (collisional plasma) and neon signs (weakly to moderately ionized and in glow mode)? So, I don't think I can concede the chromosphere, on its face, being as it's likely somewhere between flames and a neon sign. So, it's likely weakly or moderately ionized plasma. The corona, is pretty squarely pegged as plasma, seeing as it's on average several million degrees K. So, we can certainly agree on that, as well as the core (if the central fusion theory is right).
I hope my maths haven't been too far off base, for really quick "back of an envelope" calculations (I hope I've not screwed them up too badly or by too many orders of magnitude).
So, to sum it up: Corona is pretty uncontroversially plasma (1,000,000+ Kelvin). Chromosphere is likely weakly to moderately ionized (collisional{?}) plasma (not unlike neon signs and such). Photosphere, I could go either way on. Basic maths seem to peg it in the mid to high temperature "gas" range. However, I'd note that it may be weakly ionized, whether innately (4500 to 6500 K isn't exactly cold; 7,640 to 11,240 Fahrenheit, according to Google's conversion function), or through convective transport from other regions (chromosphere above, or core below). And even weakly ionized gases can display features attributable to plasmas.

Anywho, good times. Thanks for the mental exercise. Kind of fun, if a bit exhausting when you don't have reliable references handy. Heh. ;o] I seem to have rambled a bit... Good time to end it.

Best, Mgmirkin (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention densities because for the photosphere and the chromosphere, the densities are high enough to support local thermodynamic equilbrium. The chromosphere is a tricky place, but most of the gas is not ionized. Generally, that means that it is not normally considered a plasma. Now of course, by certain arcane definitions plasmas exist whenever there are ions and free electrons (so, for example, stroke a cat, make a plasma): ScienceApologist (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there appear to be competing definitions of "plasma" in use by different physical, EE, and astronomical factions. I've even occasionally heard conductive metal (as in wires) referred to as something akin to "solid plasma." Insofar as the electron charge carriers are very mobile within the metal (albeit the nuclei are rather bound in place). So, there may be some difference in terminology between different disciplines. I'm sure that any such language issues only compound the comprehension issue. It's one of the reasons that (in my own personal view) I think that there really needs to be some kind of annual or bi-annual get-together of the "top brass" of different disciplines to compare notes and hammer out "language issues" and definitions, or where one concept from one field may map onto a different field's knowledge domain. Likewise, how advances in one field might impact the study of another. Don't know if there are such meetings, dedicated solely to that purpose. I mean, I know there are conferences and such where papers are presented. I guess I'm just wondering who's in charge of making sure that one field isn't re-inventing another's wheel (or language). Just some thoughts, as I'm not familiar with what high or low-level processes or interplays go on between the various fields (aside from say journal articles / conferences). Not necessarily here or there with relation to the sun, and plasma, per se. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but generally the definition relies on whether the majority of the atoms are ionized or not. I don't know who is considering neon signs to be plasmas: their main components are neutral which is why you get neutral emission line features rather than ion lines that you see in, for example, aurora.

Plasmas for home, business and transportation. Apparently these folks understand that fluorescents (and neon signs which operate in a similar way but don't have a phospor coating of the inside of the glass) are considered to use "plasma." Arc lamps are simply a higher-end form of plasma that produces most of the light itself rather than relying on phosphors to re-emit a somewhat brighter or broader spectrum light. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for the chromosphere: the neutral emission lines generally come from the chromosphere. The emission features from inoized species are generally considered part of the corona. I'm talking here about common parlance: most physicists do not consider neon signs to be plasmas; nor do they really consider flames to be plasmas in point of fact. This is simply because most of the electrons are still bound to the atoms in these situations. Not all of them, just most. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your "online fusion course" website. Unfortunately, I don't think the authors of that chart were precisely correct with their demarcation. Flames and neon signs are the most controversial "plasma" examples listed. There are certain small-scale plasma processes that happen in those environments, but the typical plasma interactions are simply not present on the largest scales. There is obviously a point where low density flourescent-type lighting begins to behave more and more like a plasma, but I would not describe it as such until charge separation is high enough to be the dominant physical mechanism. Flames, in my estimation, are simply not plasmas in the normal sense. They don't exhibit plasma behavior when exposed to electromagnetic forces, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the items in the chart, they actually hyperlink to explanations of the phenomenon and why it's "interesting." The neon signs and fluorescent bulb explanations was found here. Fluorescent Lights and Neon Signs. Apparently they're mostly concerned with the weak ionization and the mobility of the charge carriers (electrons for the most part) such that they're reactive with the electric field in the tube, and accelerated by it, even if other charged species aren't, or are only moderately so. They seem to feel this qualifies it as a plasma, even if only a weakly ionized one.
I might also point out IPPEX Glossary of Fusion Terms which states rather plainly: "Plasma - A "Fourth State of Matter" in which many of the atoms or molecules are ionized. Plasmas have unique properties compared to solids, liquids, and gases. Most plasmas can be thought of at first as extremely hot gases, but their properties are generally quite different. Some (but not all!) Examples: the sun, fluorescent light bulbs and other gas-discharge tubes, very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space, the earth's ionosphere, parts of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of course fusion plasmas."
Or one could look at LLNL's own plasma dictionary: Plasma Dictionary - Plasma, where it states:
"Known as the "Fourth State of Matter", a plasma is a substance in which many of the atoms or molecules are effectively ionized, allowing charges to flow freely. Since some 99% of the known universe is in the plasma state and has been since the Big Bang, plasmas might be considered the First State of Matter. Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect. Examples of plasmas include the sun, fluorescent light bulbs and other gas-discharge tubes, very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, laser-produced plasmas and plasmas produced for magnetic confinement fusion. Types of plasmas include - Astrophysical, Collisionless, Cylindrical, Electrostatically Neutral, Inhomogeneous, Intergalactic, Interstellar, Magnetized, Nonneutral, Nonthermal, Partially Ionized, Relativistic, Solid State, Strongly Coupled, Thermal, Unmagnetized, Vlasov and more."
LLNL's plasma disctionary entry on [Weakly ionized plasma] is also enlightening:
"A plasma in which only a small fraction of the atoms are ionized, as opposed to a highly ionized plasma, in which nearly all atoms are ionized, or a fully ionized plasma, in which all atoms are stripped of all electrons nearly all the time. Even in a weakly ionized plasma, the dynamics of the system may be dominated by effects caused by the (relatively small) number of (relatively strongly interacting) ions and electrons, as opposed to the (relatively large) number of (relatively weakly interacting) neutrals."
Once again, it seems that the fusion / physics folks disagree with your limited interpretation on what can be classed plasma. They make rather plain statements that discharge tubes, and fluorescent / neon lights do qualify, etc. Likewise that even weakly ionized plasma can be dominated by the interactions of the relatively small proportion of free charge carriers. Seems to reaffirm what was said on the chart from LLNL.

Incidentally, as I've looked closer at some of the rest of the LLNL fusion info site, like the Layers of the Sun, I've noticed that they have a tendency to also say "gas" or "gaseous," as you do. However, they appear in many cases to be slightly pandering to laymen, such as in the statement from the top of the 'layers' page "However, the core's temperature of 15 million kelvins (27 million degrees Fahrenheit) keeps it in a gaseous state." which I'm pretty sure we can both agree is considerably past the "gaseous" state and well into the realm of plasma. So, I wouldn't necessarily take all the 'gas' language at face value, especially where there seem to be some rather blatant technical 'issues' to be corrected (like the core being plasma rather than gas). Mgmirkin (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. :)

The formation of flare loops by magnetic reconnection and chromospheric ablation

In the above they appear to talk of "Heat conducted along field lines mapping from the subshocks to the chromosphere ablates chromospheric plasma and thereby creates the hot flare loops and associated flare ribbons."

Likewise: Chromospheric scaling laws, width-luminosity correlations, and the Wilson-Bappu effect

They appear to discuss in terms of chromospheric plasma.

Likewise: Chromospheric plasma and the Farley-Buneman instability in solar magnetic regions

"However, the chromospheric-plasma parameters suggest a scenario in which upward-propagating fast-mode MHD waves of mHz frequencies would trigger the Farley-Buneman plasma instability at chromospheric layers where horizontal magnetic fields are present. [...]"

Likewise Chromospheric downflow velocities as a diagnostic in solar flares, Chromospheric and coronal explosions in solar flares

So, it's perhaps not as entirely wrong to discuss the chromosphere in terms of plasma, as it appears many researchers in the published / peer-reviewed literature do refer to it that way: as "chromospheric plasma."

-Best Mgmirkin (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

----------

Likewise, with peer-reviewed article relating to "photospheric plasma":

Understanding the rotation of coronal holes, Formation of Intensive Magnetic Flux Tubes in a Converging Flow of Partially Ionized Solar Photospheric Plasma, On changes of the rotation velocities of stable, recurrent sunspots and their interpretation with a flux tube model, Relationships between photospheric plasma angular velocity and solar activity, Understanding the rotation of coronal holes, Plasma motion in umbrae and the surrounding photosphere derived from spectroscopic Doppler measurements and tracer measurements of spots, Photospheric vortex flows as a cause for two-ribbon flares - A topological model, Electric current helicity in the solar atmosphere, Photospheric Magnetic Reconnection and Canceling Magnetic Features on the Sun, The Magnetic Nature of Coronal Holes, Coronal electric currents produced by photospheric motions (Uhh ohh, that darn 'e-word' keeps coming up!), Preflare current sheets in the solar atmosphere

Anyway, it appears that the peer-reviewed literature has bountiful references to "photospheric plasma." So, I suppose that I'd have to stand behind my original assertion that it's appropriate to speak in terms of "plasma" with reference to the photosphere (weakly-ionized) and chromosphere [weak to medium ionization?] (in addition to the core and corona [highly ionized]).

-Best Mgmirkin (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ScienceApologist! What's the temperature of the solar wind? Or maybe it's also gas? :) Leokor (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature, density, and thermodynamic equilibrium[edit]

Here's the issue: a substance that is in thermodynamic equilibrium must have a temperature so that the Maxwellian distribution of gas particles gives an energy in excess of that needed for the electrons to be stripped from the ions. Even if we take a gas that is ionized 1% as a plasma, fluorescent bulbs are not plasmas, and flames aren't either. There are far less than one out of every 100 atoms that are ionized in these situations. Most, if not all, the sources you list above are talking about isolated incidents of plasma pockets in these various solar layers. The majority of the photosphere and chromosphere is not plasma.

As an aside, I'd be interested in an explanation of how it is that the region between the corona (several million Kelvin) and the core (several million Kelvin) is ostensible "cold" (several thousand Kelvin). That's always confounded me a bit. Shouldn't the hot regions sandwiching the cold region be radiating into the cold region, increasing its temperature and evening out the temperature. How is it that a layer that cold gets sandwiched between layers that hot, without them coming into some kind of equilibrium? I realize this may be a silly and/or hard question. But it's always been a bit of a quandary for me... Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Likewise, wouldn't plasmas / ionized materials convecting from below and/or above in turn mean that the region between would be ionized (if not thermally, then through convection from more ionized regions) in some small (or large) part? Just wondering. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the more contentious of the two: is the chromosphere not a plasma? It basically has to do with the thermodynamic equilbrium involved. What one needs to do is determine the ionization fraction from the Saha equation. Generally the gas temperature is far too low in the lower chromosphere to have any meaningful ionization fraction (c.f. [1]). However, in the upper chromosphere, where the transition to the corona happens, there may be an ionization fraction approaching 1% or higher depending on how you measure it. The fact is, however, that the chromosphere is defined by the presence of a strong H-alpha feature that can only exist for neutral gas. Given that the most important and defining feature of the chromosphere is its neutral gas, it is fairly contentious to call this stuff a "plasma".

I hope you can understand.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can understand that thermal collisions are not the only ionization mechanism. Because if you don't, then you would have no qualifications to touch any article on solar physics.

On the matter of the chromosphere article that you have re-edited back. Quoting the instances of "gas":

The most common solar feature within the chromosphere are spicules, long thin fingers of luminous gas which appear like the blades of a huge field of fiery grass growing upwards from the photosphere below.

But are the spicules gas? Let's see (the boldface emphasis is mine, the italics are not)

Astronomy.com Solar spicules explained (2004)

Every 5 minutes, plasma bursts from the Sun's surface at speeds up to 50,000 miles per hour (81,000 kilometers per hour), reaching heights of 3,000 miles (5,000 km). Known as spicules, these supersonic jets rush forth with great consistency, but with relatively small diameters of just 300 miles (500 km), these periodic surges have proved to be difficult test subjects for solar researchers. Using high-resolution imagery, satellite data, and computer modeling, however, a team recently identified how spicules form.

Later in the article it also talks in terms of "plasma bubbling up from the sun's interior to the surface" (does it cease being plasma when it gets there, or is there still some not-insignificant population of free electrons / ions when it gets there?). I think they're referring to the Chromosphere, at least, when talking about propelling plasma about, implying that there is plasma to be found in the chromosphere. (Whether it's a dominant percentage, or "enough to make a difference" in the operation of the sun is perhaps another question).

From the article: "The results, which will be published in the July 29 issue of the journal Nature, showed that spicules are formed by sound waves, which have the same 5-minute period. Plasma, bubbling upward from the Sun's interior to the surface, creates the drum-like cadence. Although the sound waves usually are damped, under certain conditions, they leak into the low atmosphere, or chromosphere, spawning shock waves. These waves propel the plasma, producing more than 100,000 spicules at any given time on our star's surface." Mgmirkin (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.O. Stenflo. Solar Magnetic Fields: Polarised Radiation Diagnostics Springer 1994, ISBN 0792327934

At the limb, these absorption features would appear as the bright spicules, plasma jets shooting out at speeds 10km/s or more from the magnetic-field concentrations. [...] These bright emission points occur along the boundaries of the supergranular cells and form what is called the network, which can be seen in spectral lines formed in the upper photosphere, chromosphere, as well as in the chromosphere-corona transition region.

See also: I. S. Veselovsky, L. Trcaronírsková and S. Koutchmy. On the visible shape of the cold plasma jets in the solar chromosphere. Journal Solar Physics 153, 1-2 (1994)

Another instance from the chromosphere article where "gas" appears:

Finally, solar prominences rise up through the chromosphere from the photosphere, sometimes reaching altitudes of 150,000 kilometers. These gigantic plumes of gas are the most spectacular of solar phenomena, aside from the less frequent solar flares.

Now, if you say that this is not plasma, then you would be disagreeing with virtually all modern solar physicists. See the following few of thousands of articles that deal with solar prominences, because not one of them doesn't describe them as plasma (even the one with "multi-fluid" in the title):

R. Mecheri, E. Marsch. Drift instabilities in the solar corona within the multi-fluid description. Accepted for publication in Astronomy & Astrophysics (2008)

G.J.D. Petrie, J.W.S. Blokland, R. Keppens. Magnetohydrostatic solar prominences in near-potential coronal magnetic fields. ApJ (2007)

L. Leger, F. Paletou. 2D radiative modelling of He I spectral lines formed in solar prominences. Procs. of Solar Polarization Workshop #5 (2007)

Quoting: "Hereafter our primary interest concerns the radiative modelling of isolated and illuminated structures in which non-LTE plasma conditions prevail: solar prominences."

Not to mention the book: Heinzel P., Dorotovic I., Rutten R.J. (eds.) The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas. ISBN 978-1-583812-36-5, and a few articles on your beloved Lyman and Balmer series (also see above):

I. Crespo-Chacon et. al. Analysis and modeling of high temporal resolution spectroscopic observations of flares on AD Leo. Astronomy & Astrophysics (2006)

P. Schwartz, B. Schmieder, P. Heinzel. Non-LTE Analysis of Lyman-Line Observations of a Filament with SUMER. Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas (2007)

Thus, in all of the instances where "gas" is quoted in the chromosphere article, not only the word "plasma" is warranted but also the word "gas" is incorrect. It seems we have an iron-proof case for editing that article--not merely replacing the word, but providing more detailed descriptions based on the above articles, complete with references. It will be done.

Moreover, I submit that ScienceApologist has just demonstrated his lack of knowledge of solar physics to the degree that makes him/her unfit to edit articles on solar physics.

Leokor (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, photoionization, etc. Let's not descend into a peeing contest over the issue, as such things tend to descend into bickering and name-calling.
If SA only considers "fully-ionized plasma" ("hot plasma") to be plasma, while ignoring "partially-ionized plasma" (I've occasionally heard it referred to as "warm plasma") and "weakly ionized plasma" ("cold plasma"), then SA might not be qualified to talk about plasma, in general?

I ask/say this mainly with reference to SA's prior comments that he only considers things to be "plasma" when there is basically complete charge separation (I assume that by this he means "hot plasmas" that are fully ionized). But that seems to ignore/dismisses partially or weakly ionized plasmas altogether, which I'd have to disagree with in principle... They should not be so hand-wavingly dismissed as 'unimportant.'

Long story short, there seems to be a range of regimes in which one finds plasma. The Wikipedia article, as it currently exists, appears to be in agreement that things like neon lights, fluorescents, gas discharge tubes ARE to be considered plasma. Likewise the plasma dictionary at LLNL, likewise the IPPEX glossary of terms' entry on "plasma." Who's right? I tend to believe the lab-experimenters (EEs, plasma physicists, fusion physicists) who work with the stuff, over the astronomers (who come up with and promulgate complete bunkum kludges like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, magnetic reconnection, etc.).
But, as I've said, I'd really prefer not to get into that whole sniping, back-biting affair that such things often descend into.
For my part, I've only edited the Chromosphere / Photosphere articles after SA's reversion (which I disagree with to some extent) to add some references for the temperatures, which required reliable sources (didn't have any previously, so I added two from NASA; just recently added the references section so the ref tags actually DO something, which is a rather odd quirk of WP, but neither here nor there. Refs should show up now.). Mgmirkin (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter what SA considers plasma? The important thing is what solar physicists consider plasma, as far as the Sun is concerned. The hard fact is that neither spicules nor prominences nor, in fact, most of the solar phenomena, can be explained without recourse to properties of plasma. It's so obvious that no solar physicist even thinks of denying. I don't know what SA is doing editing articles on these subjects. Leokor (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, putting aside invectives, Leokor is right that spicules and prominences are out-of-equilbrium processes that have a (relatively) high degree of ionization compared with the rest of the chromosphere. Whether they are "plasmas" are not is a matter of opinion. Certainly prominences follow field lines, which is a hallmark of plasmas. Spicules behave a lot like lightning, another plasma. There is a case to be made for these two things to be called "plasma" just as lightning is called "plasma". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, we certainly could do without invectives. But let's also do without terminological hurdles. The field here discussed is solar physics, so let's stick to the terminology used in solar physics. It is pointless to debate what to call plasma and what not, and how it is a matter of opinion, because the solar physicists themselves are apparently of the opinion that it is plasma and to be called so. (And for a good reason, too: because it's the plasma properties that matter.) What is the Wikipedia policy on this? Isn't the terminology used by the experts in the field to be followed?

So, are we settled on this yet? Leokor (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, SA & Leokor. Though there is still some merit to making sure the correct terms are used. Especially where plasmas may behave or form structures which "neutral gases" do not. Which is not to say that plasmas cannot approximate the behavior of neutral gases or liquids. However, due to their free charges (even on extremely small scales) they CAN do things that those neutrals alone CANNOT. So, defining what's what *is* of importance. Hence why the topic is of interest. The division between what is/isn't plasma has been somewhat contentious on WP, at least partly due to the fact that if something is plasma, then one may have to also consider the effects of currents, electric fields, double layers, etc. Which seems to often be where the issue of "contention" arises. Some want to treat everything like a "neutral gas" and completely ignore electrical effects in what is pretty roundly agreed to be plasma amongst any number of reliable sources cited above. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I don't want this to turn into another "us vs. them" debate. On the other, there does seem to be a rather firm dichotomy of thought on the issue on WP. One side seems to want to treat weakly or partially ionized plasmas as if they're not ACTUALLY plasmas. Which may be fine and dandy under SOME circumstances (approximations with respect to fluid / gas laws). But to completely ignore plasma's characteristic behaviors and structures, in my opinion, would be a mistake. Granted, I'm no "expert." But, I seem to recall that Alfven had said much the same thing about the need to consider plasma / electrical processes, or astrophysics might be set back a couple decades. But, it's at least gratifying to see that a number of solar physicists do in fact refer to plasmas, even if it's not totally in vogue to do so. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprites and EXTREMELY weakly-ionized plasma![edit]

Found this article to be rather of interest in the "how low can it go" game of plasma physics. EXTREMELY LOW, is the correct answer (at the least, according to those familiar with the physics of glow discharge tubes and plasmas)! Thanks for playing!

http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-11/p41.html It's a mainstream source, and speaks of the extraordinarily low electron density plasma{!} in sprites. So low that it escapes detection via the much-vaunted "spectroscopy," and yet, high enough to MATTER... "The presence of free electrons in sprites in such dilute concentration--some 13 orders of magnitude less than that in lightning channels!--helps resolve the spectroscopic puzzle about the apparent absence of ionization in both the air-filled glow discharge tube and in the body of sprites. An electron density of 10^5 cm^-3 at an altitude of 70 km corresponds to fewer than one free electron for every 10 billion neutral nitrogen molecules. (In contrast, the molecular population in an ordinary lightning channel is completely ionized.) Plasma neutrality requires that the free electrons be balanced by positive ions. An upper bound on the N2+ concentration in sprites is therefore 10^5 cm^-3. On the assumption that the intensities of the spectroscopic signatures are proportional to the numbers of emitting species, one can expect the red emission associated with electron collisions with neutral N2 to dominate strongly over blue emission associated with electron collisions with the ionized species N2+. These considerations indicate that, although sprite plasma is so weakly ionized that it escapes spectroscopic detection, it can still strongly interact with electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently low frequency."

Hello! Are we listening? Plasma so weakly ionized that it escapes spectroscopic detection. Ohh no, there goes that pesky "it's not plasma 'cause the lines appear 'neutral'!" argument. Fact of the matter is that even extraordinarily low ionization levels (1 electron per 10 billion neutrals? Wow, even I'm kind of impressed by the fact that such low concentrations can dominate!) can apparently STILL result in materials termed plasma which still respond strongly to E/M radiation, fields, etc. The sprites are apparently an extremely weakly ionized plasma in a glow discharge state (according to that commentator; among others, I'm sure). The #'s they quote are even lower than the extremely conservative "down to 1% ionized" figure I quoted previously. As below, so above? If extremely weakly ionized materials still act like plasma, and avoid showing up as plasma "spectroscopically" (just as a what if), does that throw a monkey wrench into the whole "well, the sun only shows 'neutral' lines" argument as well? Makes you think (momentarily reconsider the proposition), at the least, I hope...

Best ~Michael Mgmirkin (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is even remotely accurate, it pretty much demolishes the "but, but, but, it's not plasma!" line of reasoning, and re-opens the debate on the sun. If one ionized part in 10 billion neutrals [not the more conservative and overly-simplified 1 part in 100] is enough to initiate glow discharges here on Earth, and to overcome "neutral" interactions, then what does that say about the sun...? Hmm, makes ya' wonder! Perhaps the electric / plasma interpretation isn't as far off the mark as he once believed! Mgmirkin (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ionization fraction of 10^-10 is high for Earth standards because the densities are so high. You need to consider both density AND ionization fraction to determine whether plasma processes dominate. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've left my comments. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure[edit]

Here you announce to the arbcom that "To declare any conflict of interest, I'll note that subsequent to meeting user Iantresman on Wikipedia, I have coincidentally met him in person through another venue and generally found him to be an amicable sort." Yet in actuallity you moderate a forum on a site, thunderbolts.info, that is run by Iantresman [2] and has a number of threads dedicated to bashing ScienceApologist: [3] In fact here [4] you accuse him of POV pushing on Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Ian Tresman is not a site admin (you imply he "runs" the site, which I'm pretty sure is inaccurate), but an occasional contributor of science resources or opinions. I've had little contact with him there aside from occasionally commenting on the same thread of discussion on the forum. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case accuracy matters to you, this can be verified easily enough by viewing the list of site roles listed at the bottom of each Picture of the Day Entry. [5]. Ian Tresman is clearly identified as a "Contributing Editor" and not as a "webmaster," "Executive Editor," or even "Managing Editor." IE, he occasionally submits a science / opinion article to the site. You seem to have assumed far more authority on his part than is actually evidenced. To my knowledge he and I have never collaborated on any articles or otherwise engaged in discussion on that site in any way other than that listed in my previous statement (IE, occasionally commenting on the same thread of the forum). Certainly there has been no "collusion" or whatever other "conspiracy" you seem to be implying goes on at that site. Having similar interests / hobbies, or sharing an opinion that SA has occasionally POV-pushed or engaged in uncivil behavior does not a conspiracy make. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, prior to about a month ago I was not a moderator, but simply a registered forum user. The forum subsequently crashed, everything was lost, and the forum had to be rebuilt from scratch. At that time, I was asked to be a moderator. Ian does not run / administer the forum either, to my knowledge. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For both of the above reasons, I didn't feel it was pertinent to mention. Must I also declare that I've occasionally posted at The Habitable Zone, Slashdot, Digg, Physorg or other sites where users are allowed to post comments or articles and we may have membership / hobbies in common (even if I've not contacted him in any meaningful way through those venues)? Mgmirkin (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to disclose the full extent of your connections to Iantresman and the extent of your coordinated off site opposition to ScienceApologist with Iantresman to the arbcom while urging them to take action on behalf of the former and against the latter is disingenuous to the extreme. Odd nature (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying conspiracy where none exists. True, I often disagree with SA. Also true Iantresman sometimes frequents one of the same sites I do. However, expressing an opinion about SA offsite to people who may or may not hold the same opinion of SA does not equate to a grand conspiracy.

I don't recall urging arbcom to do anything with regard to ScienceApologist. In fact, I've explicitly AVOIDED doing anything of the sort in a prior incident involving SA (See: Harrassment Situation above). Though if the evidence had been more conclusive in that case, I may have gone to ArbCom with it. I generally prefer the live and let live approach, though. Mgmirkin (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this sort of gaming the system to sideline your opponent makes you a prime candidate for your own arbitration case. I'll be providing this evidence to the arbcom. Odd nature (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I often disagree with SA over various issues and believe that he occasionally pushes his own POV, really has little to do with Ian's request to have a hearing on whether or not he should be unbanned. What has one to do with the other?

I was invited to comment on the request by Stifle (whom I don't know, insofar as I'm aware) in the prior entry of my talk page (above), since I had previously commented at another appeal and at the original discussion with respect to the ill-founded (in my opinion) request to ban user:Iantresman. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated that I've met said user:Iantresman offline since meeting him online at WP. I brought it up in good faith on my own. I'm sorry you feel that I did not go far enough in stating that fact (Is there some official policy I'm not aware of on how far one needs to go in disclosing? I thought I *HAD* disclosed, and apologize if you feel my disclosure was not sufficient). It's really not necessary to threaten me with arbcom proceedings. Seems a bit uncivil. My opinion. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters (in the interest of disclosure), I've in the past edited one or two articles on his private wiki at plasma-universe.com (which is perhaps a more appropriate place for private thoughts / opinions on certain issues than WP) subsequent to meeting him on WP. Though, in all honesty, I haven't edited anything there in about a year, except a suggestion for a couple references on an article on a talk page or two (but no changes to the articles themselves). I don't really consider it a priority. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add, since you bring up SA, that an IP address belonging to SA was found to be associated with a series of malicious attacks at that site. SA claimed ignorance, and that "someone else did it." The matter was dropped, though I have my doubts about his "blamelessness" in the events. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's at least one of the reasons (among others) I don't hold SA in as high of esteem as others apparently do. But, I'd prefer to leave personal feelings aside. Mgmirkin (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to use my personal associations outside of WP against me, for whatever reason, do whatever you feel like. It's your prerogative. I'd prefer to not get pulled too far into ideological battles or witch hunts, and would rather just do whatever editing needs to get done (within reason), and mind my own, for the most part. If I feel someone has been mistreated (my opinion on the User:Ianstresman issue), I'll offer my opinion. Further than that, I'd prefer to live and let live. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a few newbie mistakes I made a year or so ago when I signed up, I've generally tried to be a good WP denizen, provide references where possible when editing, use talk pages if something wasn't solid enough in my mind to WP:Be Bold. Disagreements with SA aside. Mgmirkin (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that since it's been several weeks now and no further comments have been left or actions taken that this issue is resolved to your satisfaction. Mgmirkin (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]