![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is the second reference shown here? It shows neither specific descriptions of how general relativity's predictions fail nor broader criticism of the idea that the singularity was infinitely dense. Also, the first reference is simply an introduction to the Big Bounce unrelated to the criticism stated in the first sentence. This should be at least remedied by an additional sentence following the first that clarifies that the Big Bounce is an example of the mathematical model of an infinitely dense singularity being criticized (supported by the first reference). In my opinion it would be better if a more "blanket" reference of criticism was found or the first sentence removed entirely. Section 8.6 of [1] is adequate for a reference here. The Big Bounce is not prevailing criticism but rather an alternative that has been disregarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Vercaemert ( talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
[1] http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/34642/1/Tai%20L.%20Chow.pdf
I'm told that the concept of a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point is dead wrong, that it's misleading pop-science and doesn't reflect the views of professional cosmologists. Thoughts on this? Docsavage20 ( talk) 01:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Second paragraph in alternative theories should probably be removed. Has no / improper citations, is poorly written, may or may not be sensible (probably isn't) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.175.134.62 (
talk)
18:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The section titled "traditional model" doesn't actually describe what the traditional model is... Could a physicist rectify this? Furius ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is the second reference shown here? It shows neither specific descriptions of how general relativity's predictions fail nor broader criticism of the idea that the singularity was infinitely dense. Also, the first reference is simply an introduction to the Big Bounce unrelated to the criticism stated in the first sentence. This should be at least remedied by an additional sentence following the first that clarifies that the Big Bounce is an example of the mathematical model of an infinitely dense singularity being criticized (supported by the first reference). In my opinion it would be better if a more "blanket" reference of criticism was found or the first sentence removed entirely. Section 8.6 of [1] is adequate for a reference here. The Big Bounce is not prevailing criticism but rather an alternative that has been disregarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Vercaemert ( talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
[1] http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/34642/1/Tai%20L.%20Chow.pdf
I'm told that the concept of a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point is dead wrong, that it's misleading pop-science and doesn't reflect the views of professional cosmologists. Thoughts on this? Docsavage20 ( talk) 01:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Second paragraph in alternative theories should probably be removed. Has no / improper citations, is poorly written, may or may not be sensible (probably isn't) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.175.134.62 (
talk)
18:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The section titled "traditional model" doesn't actually describe what the traditional model is... Could a physicist rectify this? Furius ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)