![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've moved the following contribution to the talk page, for review for NPOV and selection of additional references if it's to be put back in. It was contributed by 81.241.145.2 ( talk · contribs). -- Christopher Thomas 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Critical views=== * [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ An Open Letter to the Scientific Community] A critical view on the lack of open mindedness concerning cosmology research and the lack of funding for alternative hypotheses to the big bang model.
This has been discussed at some length in the archives. This letter does not belong on this page. It is appropriately covered on the nonstandard cosmologies page. Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first figure on the main page is really bad. The lines forming the sides are all straight. Assuming inflation, they should start out diverging exponentially. "Soon" their separation turns into sqrt(time) and later something more like linear again - fiddle with a 2/3 power after cold matter dominates and some acceleration rather "recently" if you like, but at least a caveat is needed. Pdn 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Made changes in section, Hubble's law expansion
Chris Mid 30 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
A brief question for those more knowledgable than me. Has there been any attempt to estimate where exactly the singularity was, relative to Sol? An explanation of my thinking in this matter: as I understand, we know the direction and velocity of various galaxies relative to us, thanks to redshift. Shouldn't it be possible, then, to mathematically estimate the vector of each galaxy, and project that back to the central location where the big bang happened? If my assumptions are in error with regards to current thinking, please feel free to correct me. Brasswatchman 30 July 2005 03:16 EST.
It's unclear why Gamow predicted "background radiation" as a "relic of the evolution of the universe". It's also unclear how this is a consequence of big bang. Radiation in the "background" implies matter beyond that, which tends to falsify big bang, not verify it. This reference to Gamow "predicting" background radiation is weak, no prediction of the "temperature" of this radiation is cited to Gamow, how do we know he just wasn't taking shots in the dark? All other guesses as to the temperature failed. Plautus satire 21:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The assumption that this radiation is "background" radiation implies that it is beyond all matter in the universe. So far as we know, the universe has no edge, which is another nail in the big bang myth's coffin. Every time we look farther, we see more matter. Assume Gamow's "prediction" was a consequence of big bang and that and "background" radiation should exist in a universe created by big bang. Then this entire article needs to be categorized as pseudoscience, since it is entirely a consequence of misunderstanding of science and even common English words like "background". Plautus satire 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me quote something I wrote last year in the original big bang talk page, which all new people to this article should read: "By 1965, Gamow was not predicting the correct value (please see non-standard talk for reference, Assis and Neves 95.) Gamow, in his 1961 revised edition of "The Creation of the Universe", which I believe was his last publication concerning the CBR before 1965, predicted a value of 50K for the CBR. After Penzias and Wilson, he changed his claim, saying that 50K was calculated as an upper limit. However, in his book no mention of an upper limit is found: Gamow never hinted that his prediction was an upper limit, but was instead the most likely value. Also, Gamows main collaborators (Alpher and Hermann, 1949) predicted a temp of around 5K, and Gamow claimed that there would be other effect in addition which would increase the temperature by around 2K more. So Gamows early 50's prediction for a lower limit was around 7K. In the early 50's, based on non-expanding models Finlay-Freundlich predicted a closer temperature (<5K) than Gamow . Max Born, in analyzing the work of F-F, concluded around 1954 that these observations could be made using radio techniques. The distinction between CBR and CMB is never made completely explicit in the works of Gamow or others. But then I havent read all of his papers so I might obviously be missing the important one where he specifically predicts microwave radiation. Im trying to be as historically accurate as possible so I will continue to research this distinction between CBR and CMB before making any more outrageous claims. -Ionized 14:35, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)" Notice how I wrote that on Feb 10th, 2004, yet the article is STILL not reflecting the historically accurate truth. PLautus welcome back! OH nvm, i guess my welcome back is too late as I just read that you have been banned for another year, a second time. Well that about does it for me, Wiki has lost all sense of NPOV and is NOT truly encyclopedic. -Ionized
It's not a good idea to call big bang a scientific theory, especially "the" scientific theory. Big bang is essentially the Genesis myth from the bible without mentioning a deity. Big bang should be called a belief in the opening paragraph. It also needs to be made clear that space is a hypothetical coordinate system invented by human beings to describe reality, it is not in itself reality. It's unclear how space can expand. I checked the dictionary and there are no reasonable definitions of "space" in it that would even allow for this possibility. Plautus satire 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is my proposed change to the opening paragraph of this article:
Big Bang is the idea that the universe was created by the explosion of an object with no volume containing the entire universe. Believers in big bang cite calculated redshifts of celestial objects as evidence that virtually everything in the universe is moving rapidly away from the Earth. Some proponents of big bang believe that space itself expands, but it is unclear what definition of space even allows for this possibility.
There's a good test of big bang. Big bang predicts that the universe is finite. Where are the edges of it? Plautus satire 02:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Plautus satire has been banned for one year, for the second time, for disruptions to the WP project. The ban lasts until August 2, 2006. -- Blainster
Actually editor 161.28.196.13 (diff: [1]) was attempting to make a pretty good point, though it was somewhat unpolished. I think what he was trying to point out was that the dimensions of quantum particles are determined by fundamental constants which are thought to be stable over time. That is, a proton today has the same radius it had when it was created. I don't think the article's phrase expansion of space and matter intended to mean that these particles are a different size than they were previously, but it is unclear and could be construed that way. So a rephrase of that statement would be beneficial. -- Blainster 19:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Was the Big Bang an isotropic radiator? If so, how did it overcome the hairy ball theorem? Kgrr 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
When The copyright problem is solved
big bang theroy should redirect here.
Is it ok to do this now?
Its been over a year since Ive come around, and I see that BB proponents have certainly taken this article back under their control. It used to be slightly more NPOV with constant edit battles to keep it that way. I love how this article gets away with being 'featured' yet not having a disclaimer about its accuracy, and obviously not being NPOV at all. I also love how the BB proponents go into the other cosmology articles and add so many disclaimers that those articles begin to be about the BB itself. Hence I added the appropriate disclaimer on top, the same one that is used on both the non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology pages. Please go back to talk page archive 1 and read it all. OH, and I just noticed you have banned Plautus AGAIN, simply for bringing in points to get people thinking outside of their little BB box.. Seriously, you people make me sick. Why dont you just ban everyone and delete the articles? You would be doing more justice to the human understanding of the universe if this where done, rather than letting rampantly false science such as the BB be displayed as absolute truth... -- Ionized
AS I predicted, the Controversial disclaimer didnt last more than 3 hours on this page. Well then, Im going to go remove the disclaimers from the other articles and see how long it takes for some fool to put them back! -Ionized
... there is a line here that reads:
"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble proved that the spiral nebulae were galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars. He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson)."
Should this read "He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth." ?
Could we have this clarified? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see that there is any evidence that the big bang theory is wrong. It has a simple, six-parameter model (actually, five parameters would suffice, as the spectral index could be set to its natural value, one), which fits observations almost perfectly. The problems, that we don't understand dark energy, dark matter and inflation from a fundamental physics perspective, are discussed in the article. There is some tension in big bang nucleosynthesis but it still seems to be within experimental and systematic uncertainties. These things are discussed in the article. I have been following the talk pages for some time. Do you have anything new to add? – Joke137 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. There is nothing I can do to change your view either. If you're referring to the recent spate of edits to cosmology and physical cosmology, I know you didn't make those edits. – Joke137 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I read the article on big bang theory. I am confused imagining the size of this atom. What was this atom sorrounded by? Are their any unknown things outside the universe. If universe is expanding in space then is their any limit of this space. I am not a science student but i am interested in space related things. I think we the humans have only a little knowledge about our universe.
i don't think that before the big bang, everything was an atom because that would go against the theory that matter cannot be made (or destroyed). no one knows what the "thing" was surrounded by because nobody was there, but i think it may have been just an infinate amount of space with no light (probably wrong :P). some scientists think that someday a huge gravitational pull created from the most massive thing in the universe will pull everything back together into a compacted ball (the theory of the big crunch (opposite of the big bang)). (MCC)
Could it be that the Big Bang is what happens on the 'otherside/inside' of a Black Hole? That would contribute to the theory of Infinity and provide a starting event for the 'expansion' of this known Universe. It would also provide for the possibility of an 'infinity' of universes, the only constant being Change/Flux. (MJB)
I see that the game of musical chairs in the introduction has started again. I have revised it, although I do not pretend that my version is perfect. I tried to emphasize that the combination of Hubble's law and the cosmological principle must imply that space itself is expanding, which is also predicted by general relativity. I think this is the central point, as omitting the cosmological principle allows for models, such as Alfvén's ambiplasma model, which account for the observed redshifts by suggesting we are at the center of an explosion, with galaxies receding because they have been ejected from a central event with some large velocity... – Joke137 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Some sections of the article suggest the Big bang to be more than a position, but rather a truth, I believe that the article to still be in the featured articles list should address those issues. Just to say that I am not really an adherent of Plasma cosmology as Ionized is :), I am more of a Super stringist and MWT adherent. The problem in the talk page seems to be caused by a debate on wherever or not the Big bang happened, rather than a debate on the different positions and whom adhere to it in the Academic community. What the users believe here, should not be the matter of the debate, but rather what is said about the theory by others. While the article is well written, I don't think it still meet the highest standards to be a featured one. Fadix 18:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've moved the following contribution to the talk page, for review for NPOV and selection of additional references if it's to be put back in. It was contributed by 81.241.145.2 ( talk · contribs). -- Christopher Thomas 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===Critical views=== * [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ An Open Letter to the Scientific Community] A critical view on the lack of open mindedness concerning cosmology research and the lack of funding for alternative hypotheses to the big bang model.
This has been discussed at some length in the archives. This letter does not belong on this page. It is appropriately covered on the nonstandard cosmologies page. Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The first figure on the main page is really bad. The lines forming the sides are all straight. Assuming inflation, they should start out diverging exponentially. "Soon" their separation turns into sqrt(time) and later something more like linear again - fiddle with a 2/3 power after cold matter dominates and some acceleration rather "recently" if you like, but at least a caveat is needed. Pdn 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Made changes in section, Hubble's law expansion
Chris Mid 30 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
A brief question for those more knowledgable than me. Has there been any attempt to estimate where exactly the singularity was, relative to Sol? An explanation of my thinking in this matter: as I understand, we know the direction and velocity of various galaxies relative to us, thanks to redshift. Shouldn't it be possible, then, to mathematically estimate the vector of each galaxy, and project that back to the central location where the big bang happened? If my assumptions are in error with regards to current thinking, please feel free to correct me. Brasswatchman 30 July 2005 03:16 EST.
It's unclear why Gamow predicted "background radiation" as a "relic of the evolution of the universe". It's also unclear how this is a consequence of big bang. Radiation in the "background" implies matter beyond that, which tends to falsify big bang, not verify it. This reference to Gamow "predicting" background radiation is weak, no prediction of the "temperature" of this radiation is cited to Gamow, how do we know he just wasn't taking shots in the dark? All other guesses as to the temperature failed. Plautus satire 21:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The assumption that this radiation is "background" radiation implies that it is beyond all matter in the universe. So far as we know, the universe has no edge, which is another nail in the big bang myth's coffin. Every time we look farther, we see more matter. Assume Gamow's "prediction" was a consequence of big bang and that and "background" radiation should exist in a universe created by big bang. Then this entire article needs to be categorized as pseudoscience, since it is entirely a consequence of misunderstanding of science and even common English words like "background". Plautus satire 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me quote something I wrote last year in the original big bang talk page, which all new people to this article should read: "By 1965, Gamow was not predicting the correct value (please see non-standard talk for reference, Assis and Neves 95.) Gamow, in his 1961 revised edition of "The Creation of the Universe", which I believe was his last publication concerning the CBR before 1965, predicted a value of 50K for the CBR. After Penzias and Wilson, he changed his claim, saying that 50K was calculated as an upper limit. However, in his book no mention of an upper limit is found: Gamow never hinted that his prediction was an upper limit, but was instead the most likely value. Also, Gamows main collaborators (Alpher and Hermann, 1949) predicted a temp of around 5K, and Gamow claimed that there would be other effect in addition which would increase the temperature by around 2K more. So Gamows early 50's prediction for a lower limit was around 7K. In the early 50's, based on non-expanding models Finlay-Freundlich predicted a closer temperature (<5K) than Gamow . Max Born, in analyzing the work of F-F, concluded around 1954 that these observations could be made using radio techniques. The distinction between CBR and CMB is never made completely explicit in the works of Gamow or others. But then I havent read all of his papers so I might obviously be missing the important one where he specifically predicts microwave radiation. Im trying to be as historically accurate as possible so I will continue to research this distinction between CBR and CMB before making any more outrageous claims. -Ionized 14:35, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)" Notice how I wrote that on Feb 10th, 2004, yet the article is STILL not reflecting the historically accurate truth. PLautus welcome back! OH nvm, i guess my welcome back is too late as I just read that you have been banned for another year, a second time. Well that about does it for me, Wiki has lost all sense of NPOV and is NOT truly encyclopedic. -Ionized
It's not a good idea to call big bang a scientific theory, especially "the" scientific theory. Big bang is essentially the Genesis myth from the bible without mentioning a deity. Big bang should be called a belief in the opening paragraph. It also needs to be made clear that space is a hypothetical coordinate system invented by human beings to describe reality, it is not in itself reality. It's unclear how space can expand. I checked the dictionary and there are no reasonable definitions of "space" in it that would even allow for this possibility. Plautus satire 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is my proposed change to the opening paragraph of this article:
Big Bang is the idea that the universe was created by the explosion of an object with no volume containing the entire universe. Believers in big bang cite calculated redshifts of celestial objects as evidence that virtually everything in the universe is moving rapidly away from the Earth. Some proponents of big bang believe that space itself expands, but it is unclear what definition of space even allows for this possibility.
There's a good test of big bang. Big bang predicts that the universe is finite. Where are the edges of it? Plautus satire 02:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Plautus satire has been banned for one year, for the second time, for disruptions to the WP project. The ban lasts until August 2, 2006. -- Blainster
Actually editor 161.28.196.13 (diff: [1]) was attempting to make a pretty good point, though it was somewhat unpolished. I think what he was trying to point out was that the dimensions of quantum particles are determined by fundamental constants which are thought to be stable over time. That is, a proton today has the same radius it had when it was created. I don't think the article's phrase expansion of space and matter intended to mean that these particles are a different size than they were previously, but it is unclear and could be construed that way. So a rephrase of that statement would be beneficial. -- Blainster 19:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Was the Big Bang an isotropic radiator? If so, how did it overcome the hairy ball theorem? Kgrr 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
When The copyright problem is solved
big bang theroy should redirect here.
Is it ok to do this now?
Its been over a year since Ive come around, and I see that BB proponents have certainly taken this article back under their control. It used to be slightly more NPOV with constant edit battles to keep it that way. I love how this article gets away with being 'featured' yet not having a disclaimer about its accuracy, and obviously not being NPOV at all. I also love how the BB proponents go into the other cosmology articles and add so many disclaimers that those articles begin to be about the BB itself. Hence I added the appropriate disclaimer on top, the same one that is used on both the non-standard cosmology and plasma cosmology pages. Please go back to talk page archive 1 and read it all. OH, and I just noticed you have banned Plautus AGAIN, simply for bringing in points to get people thinking outside of their little BB box.. Seriously, you people make me sick. Why dont you just ban everyone and delete the articles? You would be doing more justice to the human understanding of the universe if this where done, rather than letting rampantly false science such as the BB be displayed as absolute truth... -- Ionized
AS I predicted, the Controversial disclaimer didnt last more than 3 hours on this page. Well then, Im going to go remove the disclaimers from the other articles and see how long it takes for some fool to put them back! -Ionized
... there is a line here that reads:
"In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble proved that the spiral nebulae were galaxies and measured their distances by observing Cepheid variable stars. He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance. This fact is now known as Hubble's law (see Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae by Edward Christianson)."
Should this read "He discovered that the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the earth." ?
Could we have this clarified? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see that there is any evidence that the big bang theory is wrong. It has a simple, six-parameter model (actually, five parameters would suffice, as the spectral index could be set to its natural value, one), which fits observations almost perfectly. The problems, that we don't understand dark energy, dark matter and inflation from a fundamental physics perspective, are discussed in the article. There is some tension in big bang nucleosynthesis but it still seems to be within experimental and systematic uncertainties. These things are discussed in the article. I have been following the talk pages for some time. Do you have anything new to add? – Joke137 20:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. There is nothing I can do to change your view either. If you're referring to the recent spate of edits to cosmology and physical cosmology, I know you didn't make those edits. – Joke137 21:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I read the article on big bang theory. I am confused imagining the size of this atom. What was this atom sorrounded by? Are their any unknown things outside the universe. If universe is expanding in space then is their any limit of this space. I am not a science student but i am interested in space related things. I think we the humans have only a little knowledge about our universe.
i don't think that before the big bang, everything was an atom because that would go against the theory that matter cannot be made (or destroyed). no one knows what the "thing" was surrounded by because nobody was there, but i think it may have been just an infinate amount of space with no light (probably wrong :P). some scientists think that someday a huge gravitational pull created from the most massive thing in the universe will pull everything back together into a compacted ball (the theory of the big crunch (opposite of the big bang)). (MCC)
Could it be that the Big Bang is what happens on the 'otherside/inside' of a Black Hole? That would contribute to the theory of Infinity and provide a starting event for the 'expansion' of this known Universe. It would also provide for the possibility of an 'infinity' of universes, the only constant being Change/Flux. (MJB)
I see that the game of musical chairs in the introduction has started again. I have revised it, although I do not pretend that my version is perfect. I tried to emphasize that the combination of Hubble's law and the cosmological principle must imply that space itself is expanding, which is also predicted by general relativity. I think this is the central point, as omitting the cosmological principle allows for models, such as Alfvén's ambiplasma model, which account for the observed redshifts by suggesting we are at the center of an explosion, with galaxies receding because they have been ejected from a central event with some large velocity... – Joke137 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Some sections of the article suggest the Big bang to be more than a position, but rather a truth, I believe that the article to still be in the featured articles list should address those issues. Just to say that I am not really an adherent of Plasma cosmology as Ionized is :), I am more of a Super stringist and MWT adherent. The problem in the talk page seems to be caused by a debate on wherever or not the Big bang happened, rather than a debate on the different positions and whom adhere to it in the Academic community. What the users believe here, should not be the matter of the debate, but rather what is said about the theory by others. While the article is well written, I don't think it still meet the highest standards to be a featured one. Fadix 18:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)