This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I made a few changes to the template. I put in the WMAP image instead of the big bang image, although I'm not really wedded to either. It would be nice to have the WMAP image with a white background, or there's probably another image out there that's great. I also pulled out some links that I thought were too technical, redundant or were really particle-physicisy. It would be great to have a page, maybe brane cosmology or something less specific, that talked about the interplay of modern high-energy physics and cosmology, but having links to M-theory, string theory, grand unified theory, when only a small fraction of cosmologists work on that, seemed like too much. The template won't be particularly usable if it has far too many links in it.
Anyways, this template is still pretty new so I decided to take some liberties and see what people think. – Joke137 30 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)
anty gravaty statick electrowmagnetic gravaty time worp vessil) magnetic radashon forsfeeld
As you certainly have noticed, I have revised the template somewhat. My remaining concern is the presense of Redshift. This is not a purely cosmological phenomenon, and so I think that it should be either
(I notice that cosmological redshift currently redirects to Hubble's Law, but that can easily be overridden.) -- EMS | Talk 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Since there are already pages called gravitational redshift and Doppler effect, I don't really see the need. Of course, the redshift page isn't entirely about cosmology, but it still seems to fit reasonably well. – Joke137 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the gravitational redshift and redshift articles somewhat overlap, and that is not good. My suggestion is to further split the Redshift page, creating new cosmological redshift and relativistic doppler effect articles. Then the current "redshift" article becomes essentially an overview/disambiguation page.
I leave this idea here for your consideration. It is low on the priority list. In the meantime, it remains my advice that redshift be removed from this template, but I will not remove it for you. -- EMS | Talk 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I like to make a point: Hubble's law... (2) that this doppler-shift measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from the Earth
v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy
IS NOT TRUE. Just like... There is a shift in tone, the further a sound travels away from an observer. Example: a car horn passing by.
We don't notice the supple shift in hue, since galaxies flow (travel) VERY slowly (beyond our timeframe).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.211.155 ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize that QSS isn't "mainstream," and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it 2nd place behind the big bang at present? If so, I believe it should be included for historical interest. -- James S. 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're thinking a "major failed theory" should be included for "historical interest", then it is the steady-state cosmology. QSS is nowhere near major. I will revert.
May I point out that this template is for the major cosmology articles, and that plenty of scientific theories have no credible alternative? How about, say, evolution, or the theory that vision in mammals arises from light focused on the retina? – Joke 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my curt replies, but I've told myself not to get embroiled in these sorts of arguments any more. – Joke 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As Joke has clearly answered the points, QSS is thus removed. There is no reason to include it since it cannot explain the major findings of precision cosmology. It is not considered by the vast majority (perhaps every person) in the field of physical cosmology as a model that competes in explanatory or predictive power. -- ScienceApologist 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
QSS has essentially no historical significance whatsoever. It was invented by some apologists for the original steady state theory, and has been ignored since its invention. The steady state theory does have historical signficance, but it is a subjective, debatable point whether it needs to be included on the template. My feeling is no. By the way, what is this about the spacetime curvature sign? The space curvature is one of the best measured quantities in cosmology, and it is very nearly zero. Frankly, this seems like a strange place to be having this discussion. Nobody is trying to censor QSS from Wikipedia, we're just saying it's not among the ten or so most important cosmology articles. – Joke 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
From Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology#Big bang is special N.3D1 case of QSS:
Comments in reply there, please. -- James S. 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to being called an edit warrior. I am trying to help you see that excluding QSS is a monumental editorial mistake on this template. QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. -- James S. 01:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
N=1 is more precise than N>0. Therefore Occam's razor supports QSS as notable, and opposes the status quo. I object to this discourse being referred to as a war. War metaphors serve little purpose and can abscure the truth. I intend to re-add QSS to this template after an undisclosed "cooling off" period. -- James S. 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
They certainly are. However, precision is not accuracy. Since there is no way for observers inside QSS and big bang cosmologies to distinguish between the two, Occam's razor supports QSS over big bang cosmology, because N=1 is more precise than N>0 and N =/= 1. -- James S. 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology. JamesAgain 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There was no matter in the universe during the time of the Big Bang. They say that time itself was created after the Big Band but where was the space in which the Big Bang occured. It must have been complete white space or another dimension so it leaves us with one question: How old is the universe? It must been very old that time can't recall so theorically the Big Bang theory is true but it also means that the creation of the universe had helping hands: GOD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.192.138 ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey Xbehave,
Go make your own quantum entangled particle. If someone hadn't created the particle already, you wouldn't be able to use it to go back. Cart before the horse, fella. But then you don't seem to be too interested in reality anyway. And don't try to use the temporal paradox card. For me to believe that you used a particle that didn't yet exist, to go back and create it, is a much bigger leap of faith than anything my pastor, Bible, Jesus, and common sense asks me to believe (Design). Yes, the Bubble theory (very plausible though it is) only pushes back the question: Where did the original matter come from that created the Bubbles that created the Big Bang, that created our Universe? I can imagine that Jesus wanted to kick back one day and blow some Bubbles. And His breath and Word have probably created countless universes from that one action. I wonder if the beings in those universes are as silly as some in this one, to claim there was no creator. Dude, you are way out of your league. So is the flying spaghetti monster. But now I'm wanting some spaghetti, right? Anyway, I hope you find out before it's too late. There will be no unbelievers at death. Eternity's a long "time".
Spacegeek7000 (
talk) 02:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing {{#if:Einstein· Hawking. Friedman· Lemaître· Hubble· Penzias· Wilson· Gamow· Dicke· Zel'dovich· Mather· Smoot| at the top of this template, and every page it's on. I'm running Firefox 1.5.0.12 on CentOS. I don't see it from before the moves and redirects, but I do afterwards. Just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the hidden text (that which you reveal by clicking "show") is doesn't display correctly for me. Or, at least, it's harder to read than the other text which appears to be approximately the same size. I'm using Firefox 2.0 and my display is set to 1280 by 1024. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Subsection "[show]"s look terrible. Who thinks the thing is too long with all the sections expanded? Good navbars are supposed to be long, so you can scan them for your desired subject quickly. MilesAgain ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the template lists it as CoBE yet links to COBE? The COBE article also has no instances of CoBE -- MacAddct 1984 ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No there isn't, from NASA's website the correct spelling is COBE, so I corrected it. Thanks for your remark ! Sheliak ( talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
[[Category:Physics templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{paganame-1}]]
should be replaced by
[[Category:Physics templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]]
70.55.200.131 ( talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please revert to revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Physical_cosmology&oldid=370505126 since both images inlcuded since then are copyright violations queued for deletion ( commons:File:Cmbr2010.gif, commons:File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg). -- 87.79.48.243 ( talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Under Scientists there is a name Friedman and under Expanding Universe there are the Friedmann Equations. Do they intend to refer to the same person? The signature under the picture in the Friedmann Equations article doesn't seem to end in 2 ns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.217.68 ( talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I would propose that dark fluid and dark flow be removed from the categories. While dark matter and dark energy are widely believed and discussed by hundreds of papers, the dark fluid is a somewhat speculative theory that has not been worked out in much detail. Dark flow is an observation by a single group which has been substantially disputed. Per WP:NOR and WP:Due_weight, I suggest dark fluid and flow should be removed as overly speculative. They deserve articles, but not a link in the main Physical Cosmology template. Wjs64 ( talk) 00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this template as i have a book in my hand having something ore about it
49.201.143.20 ( talk) 16:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/03/planckcmblarge.jpg moew updated picture of cosmic background radiation for the universe 76.78.115.67 ( talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I created a new portal. It is about Cosmology: Portal:Cosmology
I tried but I can't add it to the bottom of the page right under the "Astronomy Portal". I hope you can give me a hand. Thanks Tetra quark ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Friedman" to "Friedmann" (missing an n). 2001:8003:6801:F200:ADAD:2159:9D0:D273 ( talk) 03:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Isaac Newton coat of arms from a obvious fake vector image to an image of the one on that was set in stone at the Woolsthorpe Manor, a much more creditable source 216.100.89.25 ( talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Physical cosmology}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
◢ Ganbaruby! (
Say hi!) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can Hawking be added to the list of scientists? Seems odd he's not already there, as he's probably the most famous cosmologist of the latter 20th century 208.85.77.1 ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can Kepler be added? IMO he’s kinda in the same league as Copernicus and quite likely better known than some of the other names in there. Frankly, I was a little surprised not to see him there first time I opened the list. Abel ( talk) 02:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not super knowledgeable on modern physical cosmology, but is Somnath Bharadwaj really notable enough to warrant inclusion in this template? PianoDan ( talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Illustris project is an on-going effort to create cosmological simulation suites of unprecedented size and accuracy to study galactic evolution on cosmological scales. While simulations can be certainly referred to as "experiments", it's really out-of-place next to all the sky surveys listed in this section. Additionally, there are other, scientifically relevant simulation suites too, like the Millennium Run, CAMELS or FIREBox just to mention a few. I don't see any reason why cherry-pick Illustris here.
Very recently I started to work on a separate Template:Computational cosmology, a branch of physical cosmology to collect the currently completely unorganized and missing, but important and related subjects. Besides other things, I intend to collect relevant cosmological simulation suites there in a dedicated list, making it unnecessary to keep Illustris here.
I'm also working on the Computational cosmology article, which we could reference here once I publish it.
-- Masterdesky ( talk) 09:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I made a few changes to the template. I put in the WMAP image instead of the big bang image, although I'm not really wedded to either. It would be nice to have the WMAP image with a white background, or there's probably another image out there that's great. I also pulled out some links that I thought were too technical, redundant or were really particle-physicisy. It would be great to have a page, maybe brane cosmology or something less specific, that talked about the interplay of modern high-energy physics and cosmology, but having links to M-theory, string theory, grand unified theory, when only a small fraction of cosmologists work on that, seemed like too much. The template won't be particularly usable if it has far too many links in it.
Anyways, this template is still pretty new so I decided to take some liberties and see what people think. – Joke137 30 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)
anty gravaty statick electrowmagnetic gravaty time worp vessil) magnetic radashon forsfeeld
As you certainly have noticed, I have revised the template somewhat. My remaining concern is the presense of Redshift. This is not a purely cosmological phenomenon, and so I think that it should be either
(I notice that cosmological redshift currently redirects to Hubble's Law, but that can easily be overridden.) -- EMS | Talk 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Since there are already pages called gravitational redshift and Doppler effect, I don't really see the need. Of course, the redshift page isn't entirely about cosmology, but it still seems to fit reasonably well. – Joke137 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the gravitational redshift and redshift articles somewhat overlap, and that is not good. My suggestion is to further split the Redshift page, creating new cosmological redshift and relativistic doppler effect articles. Then the current "redshift" article becomes essentially an overview/disambiguation page.
I leave this idea here for your consideration. It is low on the priority list. In the meantime, it remains my advice that redshift be removed from this template, but I will not remove it for you. -- EMS | Talk 19:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I like to make a point: Hubble's law... (2) that this doppler-shift measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from the Earth
v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality (the Hubble constant) between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy
IS NOT TRUE. Just like... There is a shift in tone, the further a sound travels away from an observer. Example: a car horn passing by.
We don't notice the supple shift in hue, since galaxies flow (travel) VERY slowly (beyond our timeframe).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.211.155 ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize that QSS isn't "mainstream," and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it 2nd place behind the big bang at present? If so, I believe it should be included for historical interest. -- James S. 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're thinking a "major failed theory" should be included for "historical interest", then it is the steady-state cosmology. QSS is nowhere near major. I will revert.
May I point out that this template is for the major cosmology articles, and that plenty of scientific theories have no credible alternative? How about, say, evolution, or the theory that vision in mammals arises from light focused on the retina? – Joke 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my curt replies, but I've told myself not to get embroiled in these sorts of arguments any more. – Joke 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As Joke has clearly answered the points, QSS is thus removed. There is no reason to include it since it cannot explain the major findings of precision cosmology. It is not considered by the vast majority (perhaps every person) in the field of physical cosmology as a model that competes in explanatory or predictive power. -- ScienceApologist 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
QSS has essentially no historical significance whatsoever. It was invented by some apologists for the original steady state theory, and has been ignored since its invention. The steady state theory does have historical signficance, but it is a subjective, debatable point whether it needs to be included on the template. My feeling is no. By the way, what is this about the spacetime curvature sign? The space curvature is one of the best measured quantities in cosmology, and it is very nearly zero. Frankly, this seems like a strange place to be having this discussion. Nobody is trying to censor QSS from Wikipedia, we're just saying it's not among the ten or so most important cosmology articles. – Joke 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
From Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology#Big bang is special N.3D1 case of QSS:
Comments in reply there, please. -- James S. 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to being called an edit warrior. I am trying to help you see that excluding QSS is a monumental editorial mistake on this template. QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. -- James S. 01:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
N=1 is more precise than N>0. Therefore Occam's razor supports QSS as notable, and opposes the status quo. I object to this discourse being referred to as a war. War metaphors serve little purpose and can abscure the truth. I intend to re-add QSS to this template after an undisclosed "cooling off" period. -- James S. 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
They certainly are. However, precision is not accuracy. Since there is no way for observers inside QSS and big bang cosmologies to distinguish between the two, Occam's razor supports QSS over big bang cosmology, because N=1 is more precise than N>0 and N =/= 1. -- James S. 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology. JamesAgain 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There was no matter in the universe during the time of the Big Bang. They say that time itself was created after the Big Band but where was the space in which the Big Bang occured. It must have been complete white space or another dimension so it leaves us with one question: How old is the universe? It must been very old that time can't recall so theorically the Big Bang theory is true but it also means that the creation of the universe had helping hands: GOD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.192.138 ( talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey Xbehave,
Go make your own quantum entangled particle. If someone hadn't created the particle already, you wouldn't be able to use it to go back. Cart before the horse, fella. But then you don't seem to be too interested in reality anyway. And don't try to use the temporal paradox card. For me to believe that you used a particle that didn't yet exist, to go back and create it, is a much bigger leap of faith than anything my pastor, Bible, Jesus, and common sense asks me to believe (Design). Yes, the Bubble theory (very plausible though it is) only pushes back the question: Where did the original matter come from that created the Bubbles that created the Big Bang, that created our Universe? I can imagine that Jesus wanted to kick back one day and blow some Bubbles. And His breath and Word have probably created countless universes from that one action. I wonder if the beings in those universes are as silly as some in this one, to claim there was no creator. Dude, you are way out of your league. So is the flying spaghetti monster. But now I'm wanting some spaghetti, right? Anyway, I hope you find out before it's too late. There will be no unbelievers at death. Eternity's a long "time".
Spacegeek7000 (
talk) 02:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing {{#if:Einstein· Hawking. Friedman· Lemaître· Hubble· Penzias· Wilson· Gamow· Dicke· Zel'dovich· Mather· Smoot| at the top of this template, and every page it's on. I'm running Firefox 1.5.0.12 on CentOS. I don't see it from before the moves and redirects, but I do afterwards. Just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the hidden text (that which you reveal by clicking "show") is doesn't display correctly for me. Or, at least, it's harder to read than the other text which appears to be approximately the same size. I'm using Firefox 2.0 and my display is set to 1280 by 1024. -- GentlemanGhost ( talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Subsection "[show]"s look terrible. Who thinks the thing is too long with all the sections expanded? Good navbars are supposed to be long, so you can scan them for your desired subject quickly. MilesAgain ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the template lists it as CoBE yet links to COBE? The COBE article also has no instances of CoBE -- MacAddct 1984 ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No there isn't, from NASA's website the correct spelling is COBE, so I corrected it. Thanks for your remark ! Sheliak ( talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
[[Category:Physics templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{paganame-1}]]
should be replaced by
[[Category:Physics templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]] [[Category:Astronomy templates|{{{PAGENAME}}}]]
70.55.200.131 ( talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please revert to revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Physical_cosmology&oldid=370505126 since both images inlcuded since then are copyright violations queued for deletion ( commons:File:Cmbr2010.gif, commons:File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg). -- 87.79.48.243 ( talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Under Scientists there is a name Friedman and under Expanding Universe there are the Friedmann Equations. Do they intend to refer to the same person? The signature under the picture in the Friedmann Equations article doesn't seem to end in 2 ns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.217.68 ( talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I would propose that dark fluid and dark flow be removed from the categories. While dark matter and dark energy are widely believed and discussed by hundreds of papers, the dark fluid is a somewhat speculative theory that has not been worked out in much detail. Dark flow is an observation by a single group which has been substantially disputed. Per WP:NOR and WP:Due_weight, I suggest dark fluid and flow should be removed as overly speculative. They deserve articles, but not a link in the main Physical Cosmology template. Wjs64 ( talk) 00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this template as i have a book in my hand having something ore about it
49.201.143.20 ( talk) 16:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/03/planckcmblarge.jpg moew updated picture of cosmic background radiation for the universe 76.78.115.67 ( talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I created a new portal. It is about Cosmology: Portal:Cosmology
I tried but I can't add it to the bottom of the page right under the "Astronomy Portal". I hope you can give me a hand. Thanks Tetra quark ( talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Friedman" to "Friedmann" (missing an n). 2001:8003:6801:F200:ADAD:2159:9D0:D273 ( talk) 03:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Isaac Newton coat of arms from a obvious fake vector image to an image of the one on that was set in stone at the Woolsthorpe Manor, a much more creditable source 216.100.89.25 ( talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Physical cosmology}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
◢ Ganbaruby! (
Say hi!) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can Hawking be added to the list of scientists? Seems odd he's not already there, as he's probably the most famous cosmologist of the latter 20th century 208.85.77.1 ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can Kepler be added? IMO he’s kinda in the same league as Copernicus and quite likely better known than some of the other names in there. Frankly, I was a little surprised not to see him there first time I opened the list. Abel ( talk) 02:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not super knowledgeable on modern physical cosmology, but is Somnath Bharadwaj really notable enough to warrant inclusion in this template? PianoDan ( talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Illustris project is an on-going effort to create cosmological simulation suites of unprecedented size and accuracy to study galactic evolution on cosmological scales. While simulations can be certainly referred to as "experiments", it's really out-of-place next to all the sky surveys listed in this section. Additionally, there are other, scientifically relevant simulation suites too, like the Millennium Run, CAMELS or FIREBox just to mention a few. I don't see any reason why cherry-pick Illustris here.
Very recently I started to work on a separate Template:Computational cosmology, a branch of physical cosmology to collect the currently completely unorganized and missing, but important and related subjects. Besides other things, I intend to collect relevant cosmological simulation suites there in a dedicated list, making it unnecessary to keep Illustris here.
I'm also working on the Computational cosmology article, which we could reference here once I publish it.
-- Masterdesky ( talk) 09:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)