Talk:Ambiplasma

So honestly I have no idea what to say, except to reference Talk:Plasma cosmology. And possibly the history of luminiferous aether.

Removed the "field" from "plasma field", because it's meaningless. Removed the utterly bizarre reference to the biblical Book of Genesis. Removed "koinomatter" because, as far as I can tell, no one but Alfvén ever used the term, and as written it does nothing but confuse. Added the word "hypothetical" because it desperately needs to be on here somewhere, and this was my best guess as to where.

Really, the details of Alfvén's cosmology belong on another page. This should just be a description of ambiplasma itself, with references thereto: surely the concept of a matter-antimatter plasma isn't inherently tied to it? (If it is -- that is, if there can't be non- macrocosmic ambiplasmas -- then this information should probably just all be put in Plasma cosmology and let ambiplasma be a redirector.)

--Aponar Kestrel 07:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Field in disfavour?

The theory has generally fallen in disfavour, as precision measurements of the large scale structure of the universe are in fine agreement with the Lambda-CDM model of Big Bang.

I replaced this statement with "The theory appears to have fallen into disfavour." as I could find not citable information connecting any "precision measurements" with the ambliplasma theory. --Iantresman 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precision measurements never depend on any theory as they are just observations. The statement simply points out that precision measurements confirm the ΛCDM. --ScienceApologist 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because "precision measurements" are consistent with "Lambda-CDM model", does not necessarily imply that they are (a) inconsistent with Ambiplasma model (b) that it means that the ambiplasma model has fallen into disfavour. Unless you have some citations to support your statements. --Iantresman 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In science, models are measured against each other. Precision consistency only is had in the Lambda-CDM model because baryon-asymmetry is measured to exist there. This is simply evidence against ambiplasma. Even Eric Lerner agrees that ambiplasma is wrong. --ScienceApologist 06:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that "precision measurements of the large scale structure of the universe are in fine agreement with the Lambda-CDM model of Big Bang."
I disagree (a) that this necessarily implies that this is the cause of the ambiplasma theory falling into disfavour (b) AND there is citation confirming this. --Iantresman 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiplasma implies a baryon symmtery while Lambda-CDM implies a baryon asymmtery. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to suggest that anomalous redshifts, because they supported alternative cosmologies, implied that standard cosmology was weakened, you'd probably disagree. So I agree that what you wrote is plausible, but still not necessarily so, unless you have a citation. --Iantresman 15:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Merger of Plasma Cosmology into the Ambiplasma article

On the Plasma_cosmology page, ScienceApologist has added a Merge suggestion tag, suggesting that the entire Plasma Cosmology article be merged with Ambiplasma article. The merge tag redirects discussion about the merge to this talk page. However, discussion about this merge is actually taking place here, and here and finally here, if anyone is interested. -Ionized 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]