This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the picture supposed to be labeled "logaritmic time"? Methinks not.
This picture looks nice, but it is rather bare in its description. There are large chunks of the graph listed in which nothing happens. Might it be better, perhaps, to split the picture into separate portions, with each portion linking to different area of the timeline of the Big Bang article? -- Modemac 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Surely the epoch of nucleosynthesis is 100-300 s or so, as per Big Bang nucleosynthesis? Why is it being labelled as covering most of the first 300,000 years? Or is my brain melting again? -- Bth
Can anyone explain how the elements were formed? Jake200493 ( talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I just made some epochs into links, no actual text edits, and now all looks more compressed and distorted. :-S I wish I knew how the <timeline> tags actually worked, or at least why it turned into that from making text into simple links. -- 213.113.67.150 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This scale is confusing. Why use "10*log time" rather than "log time"? E.g. the Planck epoch is at 10^-43 seconds, marked as "-430" on the scale. This would be less confusing if the scale was "-43". This is especially apparent because I followed a link from Timeline of the Big Bang. Axl 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On 17th October 2006, an anonymous user noted that the label is misspelt "logaritmic". Can one of the graphics experts correct this, please? Axl 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is listed that the first star formed 100 million years after the Big Bang. I have a source from Space.com that says the first star formed 155 million years after the Big Bang, can we use this source.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first_star_011115.html Maldek ( talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently says strong forces seperates from electronuclear at -360. Should be seperates from electroweak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.70.5 ( talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Having seen the latest Planck (spacecraft) pictures (see one below) it seems to me clear that our graphic is incorrect after around 380 000&nsbp years after near as we can get to zero time on a logarithmic scale from when time was born. Our diagram tells us that the universe was dark, and calls the period up to about 100 million years dark ages. The photos of Planck shows that from around 380 000&nsbp years photons were escaping freely, we were in a jumbled up mess, yes, but nothing like dark.
Let us get updated by the experts. LouisBB ( talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Any reason this article shouldn't be merged into Timeline of the Big Bang? There seems to be space in that article for the graphic. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! It would be nice if the redshift/the scale factor would be given as an additional time axis....dont you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.190.125 ( talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this article redundant to Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death? What purpose does this article serve that isn't already covered by the larger graph? I've said this already on this talk page, but this time I'm making it an official merge proposal. (I don't think a merge is actually necessary - a redirect would be more appropriate - but this is the best way of stimulating discussion.) DoctorKubla ( talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The Heat Death is a possible outcome for end of universe. However there are many possible outcomes beside that, so we can't merge these 2 unless these 2 theories are entirely dependent of one another. Byronchen150199 ( talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the picture supposed to be labeled "logaritmic time"? Methinks not.
This picture looks nice, but it is rather bare in its description. There are large chunks of the graph listed in which nothing happens. Might it be better, perhaps, to split the picture into separate portions, with each portion linking to different area of the timeline of the Big Bang article? -- Modemac 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Surely the epoch of nucleosynthesis is 100-300 s or so, as per Big Bang nucleosynthesis? Why is it being labelled as covering most of the first 300,000 years? Or is my brain melting again? -- Bth
Can anyone explain how the elements were formed? Jake200493 ( talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I just made some epochs into links, no actual text edits, and now all looks more compressed and distorted. :-S I wish I knew how the <timeline> tags actually worked, or at least why it turned into that from making text into simple links. -- 213.113.67.150 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This scale is confusing. Why use "10*log time" rather than "log time"? E.g. the Planck epoch is at 10^-43 seconds, marked as "-430" on the scale. This would be less confusing if the scale was "-43". This is especially apparent because I followed a link from Timeline of the Big Bang. Axl 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On 17th October 2006, an anonymous user noted that the label is misspelt "logaritmic". Can one of the graphics experts correct this, please? Axl 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is listed that the first star formed 100 million years after the Big Bang. I have a source from Space.com that says the first star formed 155 million years after the Big Bang, can we use this source.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first_star_011115.html Maldek ( talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently says strong forces seperates from electronuclear at -360. Should be seperates from electroweak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.70.5 ( talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Having seen the latest Planck (spacecraft) pictures (see one below) it seems to me clear that our graphic is incorrect after around 380 000&nsbp years after near as we can get to zero time on a logarithmic scale from when time was born. Our diagram tells us that the universe was dark, and calls the period up to about 100 million years dark ages. The photos of Planck shows that from around 380 000&nsbp years photons were escaping freely, we were in a jumbled up mess, yes, but nothing like dark.
Let us get updated by the experts. LouisBB ( talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Any reason this article shouldn't be merged into Timeline of the Big Bang? There seems to be space in that article for the graphic. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! It would be nice if the redshift/the scale factor would be given as an additional time axis....dont you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.190.125 ( talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this article redundant to Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death? What purpose does this article serve that isn't already covered by the larger graph? I've said this already on this talk page, but this time I'm making it an official merge proposal. (I don't think a merge is actually necessary - a redirect would be more appropriate - but this is the best way of stimulating discussion.) DoctorKubla ( talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The Heat Death is a possible outcome for end of universe. However there are many possible outcomes beside that, so we can't merge these 2 unless these 2 theories are entirely dependent of one another. Byronchen150199 ( talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)