Talk:Big Bang/Archive 14

Philosophical and religious interpretations: esoteric cosmologies
Regarding the recent edition made into this part of the related section by ScienceApologist: Please donnot change at your own discretion concepts that what you never heard or studied before. They were inserted into the text in the appropriate section and in a formal and neutral language. It would require for you some years to study the basics and more years to start understanding any of these esoteric cosmologies; in the same way as it takes some years for any of us to learn the basics of a future profession through an university degree and then it takes many more years of experience to develop the proficiency and skills that may turn each of us into a recognized master professional in the respective field. When you change or edit something without the specific knowledge, then you most probably currupt or distort the data, as it happened in this case, and misguide the readers who expect to be reading or studying a most accurate article in this current theme of the Big bang. The data about "esoteric cosmologies" was inserted with good will, in the most accurate and sintectic way to transmit to the reader the position according this mentioned field of human knowledge (scientific or not) about the theme of the article. It is perhaps from a minority, but still it represents the thought of this minority in societies around the world (against) the Big bang theory. If the majority here finds it inconveniente to have it here, then you should delete it all, instead of trying to reword it in order to support the position of the majority (as it was the case): it becames then an premeditated immoral action to fake concepts (distortion) in order to support our own position (does any true scientist, physicist, here do the same action-practice in order to find support to his/her experiments or theories? I think not, so please do have some consideration). Thank you. --Viriathus 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With appreciation for your contributions to this article, the philosophical and religious interpretations are entirely peripheral to the subject of the Big Bang. The briefest of summaries is what is hoped for. If summaries cannot be made of the connection between emanationism and the Big Bang, then perhaps the suggestion that there are parallels between the two should be removed. --ScienceApologist 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The emanationism, in esoteric cosmologies, refers to expansion of spiritual worlds till a material state of the universe is reached and not to an expansion of the physical-material universe itself as postuladed in the big bang theory: this was already stated in the original lines that you have "summarized":
 * " In esoteric cosmologies, including Rosicrucian, Theosophical, Sufi and the Kabbalah (related to the conception of "divine retraction", tzimtzum, as explained in the Zohar), expansion refers to the emanation or unfolding of steadily denser planes or spheres from the spiritual summit until the lowest and most material world is reached. The emanation is conceived to have been originated, at the dawn of the universe's manifestation, in The Supreme Being Who sent out - from the Absolute's "Chaos" beyond comprehension - the dynamic force of creative energy, as sound-vibration, "the Word", into the abyss of space (this dynamic force is being sent forth, through the ages, framing all things that constitute and inhabit the universe). Then, at the midpoint of the evolutionary cycle, the reverse process begins: the lower worlds gradually dematerialize or etherealize and are infolded or indrawn into the higher worlds; the heavens are 'rolled together as a scroll' (Isaiah 34:4). Thus, outbreathing and inbreathing can refer to the expansion of the One into the many, and the subsequent reabsorption of the many into the One, not to any 'smeared-out singularity' and its subsequent physical expansion as postulated in the Big Bang theory. The most basic teachings of these esoteric cosmologies can be regarded as similar to the conception of a steady state universe based in the aether medium, as postulated by the non-mainstream "Physics of Creation" (Aspden, Harold (2003), The Physics of Creation, PhD. Physics - University of Cambridge [1953], U.K., (html and pdf available). " --Viriathus 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that esoteric cosmologies are more comfortable with the falsified steady state theory, then such a summary belongs at steady state theory. --ScienceApologist 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your words were "If true, then bye-bye! There are plenty of religious ideas that conflict with the Big Bang. Place this on steady state if you like." . But you seem to forget that the mentioned section already states for a long time:
 * "Philosophical and religious interpretations": (...) Some people believe that the Big Bang theory lends support to traditional views of creation as given in Genesis, for example, while others believe that the Big Bang theory is inconsistent with such views. "
 * But then, your excuse says it all: only what is seen as supporting your theory is valid here. What is seen as being against your theory is erradicated, regardless if those against are rooted on society perpectives (even if a minority) and/or if they present any references support (that may carry evidences). Well, if your action corresponds to the same criterium or method used by the current Science (Physics) that supports the Big bang theory, I am glad I am not an adherent of such theory. It is strange also how one editor, by its own, can take the decision of what should be included or not, when such an important article is faced with different perspectives about the theme it describes. Bye, Regards --Viriathus 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The editorial removal of this interpretation is not an endorsement of the Big Bang. The section is entirely about religious/philosophical interpretations that have found parallels with the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang History Section
The history section of this article is a mess. It does not deserve featured status. Charlie T 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It never hurts to be a little more specific. What in particular about it is bad? Luna Santin 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Charlie, please sign your comments with four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ . It puts your username and date on the comments and helps others prioritize discussions on article improvements based upon recent posts vs. old ones.  And I agree with Luna in that a more specific suggestion as to how we can improve the history section would be so much more helpful than the vague complaint you've written here.  Thanks, Astrobayes 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I read this article. So, I gave the history section another read and I found it to be highly readable.  It isn't too technical, it cites its sources, presents the information logically and chronologically.  So, without a more specific constructive criticism from an individual, I'm quite confused about what exactly needs to be changed. Astrobayes 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang
I've deleted Milne Model from the chapter Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang, it was just re-inserted. Let me explain my rationale for not including it:

IMHO Physics beyond the Big Bang extend the the standard Big Bang Model by making claims about occurrences very early (before, very short after the assumed point of time of the bang) very late (fate of the universe) or very far away (maybe even behind the horizon) but otherwise agree with the standard model.

The Milne Model definitively doesn't fit this description.

Pjacobi 17:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are some quotes from the article on the Milne model. They seem to fit in the specified category.


 * Philosophical Differences


 * The differences between Milne’s concept of space-time and Einstein’s concept of space-time appear to run much deeper than is commonly appreciated. For instance the Standard Cosmological Model maintains the big bang was not actually an explosion, but simply the expansion of space. This is completely at odds with the cosmology of Milne which is represented exactly by an explosion of matter into space. Pervect 18:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Milne’s model describes


 * 1. A literal explosion of matter from a point into pre-existing space. In any reference frame, space exists outside the finite region of the universe, and space pre-existed the big bang.


 * The above seems to fit the "beyond the big bang" category to me. Pervect 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This model is not "beyond the Big Bang" and was falsified in 2000 with the observations of a time-varying temperature of the CMB. --ScienceApologist 13:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see how the Milne Model would not predict time-varying temperature of the CMB. JDoolin 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, that is only one of many times it has been falsified. –Joke 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Name one? JDoolin 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the quote above, what makes you say that it's not "Beyond the Big Bang"? I will agree that the model has been falsified and is at this point of historical interest.


 * Source? Where has this model been falsified?  JDoolin 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this dispute could be reconciled with changing the name of the section. (But to what, exactly?)   We could throw some other links in there too, like Self creation cosmology.  I'm not sure whether this approach would make people happy or more upset, though.  Personally I think that giving readers alternatives to the big bang is not only encyclopedic, but tends to show how strong the Big Bang theory is by comparison.  Pervect 18:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Milne's Model should probably be put in another header. Even if you don't regard it as legitimate, perhaps it should go under "Summarily dismissed models of historical interests"  In fact, I don't consider Milne's model to be "beyond" the big bang, as it predates it, and it is in no way compatible with the FLRW metric, which all of the other models seem to have in common. JDoolin


 * No, no, no. Perhaps I was unclear in my statement. In the "beyond" section, there should be listed those theories, which agree with standard big bang model predications (which agree with the observations), except for very early times, very late times or very far away. The Milne model doesn't qualify as it is in disagreement with observations. --Pjacobi 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I wish you would cite examples of observations which it is incompatible with, rather than simply disregarding it. JDoolin 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose putting both Milne_Model and Oscillatory universe in the History section in some manner To Be Determined as influential but now-dead models of historical interest. This leaves "beyond the big bang" with only three entries:


 * brane cosmology, subcategories brane inflation, ekpyrotic, Cyclic_model, pre big bang, Randall-Sundrum_model mentioned as subcategories
 * Hartle-Hawking_state
 * Chaotic_inflation


 * The last two entries are just stubs, though. We can always hope someone will expand them, I suppose. Cyclic_model is described currently as a sub-category of brane and would replace oscillatory which is also outdated.  If there is a non-brane cyclic version around, it's not documented in the wikipedia that I could tell.  If there is an article on a non-brane cyclic model, it should be linked here.  Pervect 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to me to put Milne Model in a list of "considered dead" models, as it appears to be considered dead. In my opinion, rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated.  I think it is a much stronger model than Friedmann's Solution to the Einstein Field Equations, and if it is allowed to be scrutinized in both its original format and this encyclopedia format, Milne's Model will eventually be recognized as the correct one.


 * As far as the Standard Model is described on that page, I think different scientists have different conceptions of the universe, running the gamut between pure Milne Cosmology and pure Friedmann cosmology. Stephen Weinberg, for instance, in "Dreams of a Final Theory", says "It is misleading to say that the universe is expanding, because solar systems and galaxies are not expanding, and space itself is not expanding.  The galaxies are rushing apart in the way that any cloud of particles will rush apart once they are set in motion away from each other."


 * I hope I have given some kind of start to an article on Milne's Model, and I would welcome other people to edit if they see I have made some factual error. I think I have described the Friedmann Metric and the Standard Model accurately.  Pjacobi has mentioned that my comparison may be original research, and I only intended it to be common knowledge.  I want to encourage experts to go and check whether my representation of the Standard Model is accurate, especially in light of Weinberg's opinions above.  Is Weinberg in disagreement with the standard model or have I somehow misrepresented the Standard Model?  The general consensus on Wikipedia seems to be contrary to Weinberg.


 * I can say that my interpretation of Milne's Model is very different than that of Peebles. Peebles mentions that Milne introduced the phrase "Einstein's cosmological principle" for "the assumption that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic in the large scale average," and that "his attempt to base a complete world picture on this principle is no longer considered interesting."  If anyone cares to read the book for themselves, they will see that Milne brought up "Einstein's cosmological principle" primarily to attack it, not to base a complete world picture on the principle.


 * Also Peebles says "Milne considered the particle horizon an argument against relativistic cosmology." Whether Milne thought this or not is unclear from my reading, but the fact that the particle horizon had not been observed in 1933 may have had something to do with it.  I would be embarassed too, if I had to publish a theory that predicted a continuous finite background radiation which was obviously not observed by experiment.  Even if it were considered dead, Milne's model should have been resurrected when this background was discovered.


 * All I can say is that this book is out there in the libraries, "Relativity, Gravitation, and World Structure." Read it for yourselves.  Don't take my word for it or Peebles, or Kragh's, or ScienceApologists, or anybody else's.  Certainly, I may have incorporated my own thinking into the article, but I think the model has been unfairly treated by others, and just as people who think the current Big Bang theory is correct have written and maintain the article on the Big Bang, it seems fitting that other models are presented by people who believe they are correct.


 * Thanks JDoolin 22:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Implemented edits
It looked to me like there was a reasonable consensus, so I implemented the proposal to move the Milne model and the oscillatory universe to the history section. Pervect 09:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. --Pjacobi 10:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. :-)  JDoolin 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang and an Infinite Universe
Is the concept of an Infinite Universe at odds with the Big Bang? If so, how? (Simonapro 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC))


 * The short version is, the universe having (potentially) infinite extent doesn't cause problems for the big bang. If you follow GR strictly, and ignore quantum gravity effects, you get an arbitrarily large universe still compacting to zero extent. If you take a more cautious view, and just roll things back to the point where quantum gravity effects would be expected to dominate, you end up with a situation where the newborn universe is infinite in extent, but any local part of it still expands vastly in the manner described by the article.


 * Attempts to measure the size of the universe by looking for artifacts that "wrapping" of space back onto itself would produce have been tried, but the results are inconclusive ("at least 150 billion light-years and maybe infinite", if I remember correctly). --Christopher Thomas 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am reading in the article is that Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding, contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein. I think this statement is basically suggesting that the universe is not infinite? I understand that at some point there may have been an infinite universe, but what about now? (Simonapro 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC))


 * The problem wasn't with an infinite universe - it was with an infinite universe where parts weren't moving (much) with respect to each other, that had been around forever. That would seem to inevitably result in several problems. The biggest visible one being that every line of sight would eventually end on the surface of a star, making the sky as bright as the Sun. Another problem is that you'd have to invent some mechanism for producing new hydrogen and getting rid of iron and other fusion products, or else stars would all have burned out by now. Another problem is that you have to invent some mechanism for producing the substantial amounts of deuterium observed, as this doesn't seem to be produced by stars (it's instead consumed, very quickly). Lastly, plugging any static, infinite universe into Einstein's equations gives you a spacetime that should collapse in on itself locally.


 * The big bang solved the problems by proposing a universe that was still at least potentially infinite in extent, but that had a finite age and that had space constantly expanding. The expansion of space solved the local collapse problem (unlike an unmoving, non-collapsing universe, it was a solution consistent with the equations - a de Sitter space). The limited age of the universe meant we didn't have to worry about all lines of sight ending on stars, as we could only see out to a finite distance, and that we didn't have to worry about fusion products being recycled, as initial stores of hydrogen were enough to power stars to the present time. The presence of deuterium was explained by the Big Bang nucleosynthesis period, which happened briefly enough that it could form without immediately burning up afterwards.


 * I hope this clears up what the problems were with the infinite, static universe model, and why the big bang doesn't suffer from those problems. It isn't a perfect model, but it's as close as we've found to date. --Christopher Thomas 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * C. Thomas is right in that the problem was never with infinity but rather with an infinite, unchanging (as a whole) universe. The two terms were not meant to be mutually exclusive.  Einstein's conception of the Universe, and of the laws therein, were always with respect to his view of a higher power and he felt therefore that the static universe fit most closely his conception of a god.  There are some great books in the science section of your local library or bookstore regarding Einstein's philosophy.  As experiment and observation have evolved we know that the Universe is not static, but a dynamic infinite universe is still within the realm of possibility and citations of peer-reviewed research as such should be reflected in the article. Astrobayes 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay I think that will take me some time to comprehend but I am sure I can get there eventually. Just for the lay-person though. How would go about answering the question "Is the Universe Infinite or Finite" in the easiest way possible? Thanks for everything so far. (Simonapro 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC))


 * "We don't know, but it's definitely much larger than we can see, and could be infinite." That's about as concise a statement as I can make. --Christopher Thomas 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dark Matter Discovery Noted
As is noted in the Dark Matter article, the new observation of actual dark matter - independently of ordinary matter - by the Kavli Insititute at SLAC as well as other collaborators all over the world is a milestone in the synthesis of a coherent picture of the Universe and I have therefore updated that information in the references to Dark Matter here in this article. Cheers, Astrobayes 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted your phrasing slightly to make it clear that the observations are still gravitational in nature, and it is not known what kind of particle composes dark matter. –Joke 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All good points, and thanks for the help. I am familiar with the team who made the discovery and if I hear any new public news I'll gladly share it here.  I got wind of some news yesterday about the connection between this discovery and a new probe for dark energy, but I'm going to wait until it's published to post it.  Needless to say, exciting stuff is coming down the pipe for the Dark Energy and Dark Matter Wiki articles. Cheers, Astrobayes 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Singularity exists or singularity existed?
If we have established that the singularity exists, have we established if it still exists or that it just existed? Any ideas on the arguements or counterarguements for this topic or where the arguements are at right now? (Simonapro 14:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC))


 * The purely-GR version of the model predicts that a singularity existed at the very beginning of the universe, as the starting point for expansion. This singularity no longer exists under that model. As I mentioned in the previous thread, a more realistic view is that the view based on General Relativity is only valid back to the point where GR is expected to break down (when the primordial plasma is at the Planck temperature, or when the curvature of spacetime is greater than some Planck-related value that I'm forgetting at the moment). Under this view, no singularity ever existed, though we don't really know what _did_ happen prior to this point (that would take a theory of quantum gravity to handle the extreme space curvature, and a theory of everything to handle force unification at Planck temperatures). --Christopher Thomas 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Under this current Big Bang model it seems to me that the universe had a beginning although it is possible that an infinite universe was created after the Big Bang. Is my statement a possibility? (Simonapro 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

POV, article is one sided
I think it is warranted that a criticisms of the big bang theory section be created. Right now the article is POV skewed with no dissenting opinions given. ken 03:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I second that motion. This article is in no way neutral. Right now, if you say you think there was a big bang, you are accused of believing the stuff presented here, but if you say the big bang theory is wrong, then people wonder how you would think that since that's inconsistent with Hubble's Law. Anyway, it is obvious that things are moving apart, and likewise, they must have previously been closer together. You can take that to it's natural conclusion that things were at a point, or you can take that to another reasonable conclusion that things were flung past one another. The arguments presented here are monolithic and it seems to me, almost intentionally misleading. The theory that is presented here is completely inconsistent with the special theory of relativity. No one has either verified this or contradicted this yet; it only gets removed from whatever article I put it in. Any statement of actual interest that I've made regarding this Big Bang theory or the Standard Cosmological Model has been removed without refutation or argument. I find this to be very interesting because it seems to indicate that you're not sure that I'm wrong, only that it doesn't sound right. Well why don't you know what your theory says? When I have an awkward position regarding the Milne model I can state it with certainty and defend it well. When the proponents of the Big Bang have an awkward postion regarding the Big Bang, they delete the question. JDoolin 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you support a theory that applies Special Relativity only locally? Where is your concrete evidence that the FLRW metric applies to ANYTHING? How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation? You say it is predicted? Do you have a mechanism? Half of you think that it's coming from far away, and half of you think it is coming from the vacuum of space? But that debate is not presented here. You are pretending it is monolithic.

How do you think that inflation *explains* anything? Guth only said that it was needed. Now you stand behind speculation about what causes it as though these speculations were somehow proof of your theory! Inflation should be an effect of something obvious, not something that has never been seen before.

Now a colliding galaxy has produced a lot of extra nonbaryonic matter. I hear on the radio and on TV that you are using this as proof--new evidence for your theory because you need a lot of extra nonbaryonic matter. But you need it *constantly*, not as a short result of an explosion!

You are continually asked by everyone who comes along how a symmetrical distribution of matter can affect the shape of spacetime, and you continually put off anyone who asks as uneducated and ineducable. It is a good question, and you simply cannot answer it.

You are all insane! You have NOTHING. This theory is completely without merit! The FLRW metric is without proof, without reason, without logic, without clear explanation, without a hint of experimental evidence, and without merit.

Okay, so now you know how I really feel. How's that for a non-neutral point of view?JDoolin 07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion. Rather than merely agreeing with me that the big bang article is POV, how about someone creating a "Criticisms of the Big Bang theory" section of the article.  I would do it myself but I am not that scientifically literate when it comes to cosmology.  ken 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Please read the archives and see the notice at the top of this page. According to verifiable sources, the Big Bang is what we have to go on for the scientific community's view on cosmology. As such, the criticisms and shortcomings are already discussed in proportion to their notability and justifiable weighting. If you are interested in alternatives to the Big Bang, there is a wonderful page over at Nonstandard cosmologies for you to look at. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above post. There has been some notable dissent of the Big Bang theory in the scientific literature and I believe that dissent is notable. I created a new section entitled "Big bang theory dissent" that needs to be expanded for the article to cease being POV.  Here is what I wrote so far:  "In the May 22, 2004 issue of the science journal New Scientist, 33 notable scientists, which included Halton Arp, published an open dissent letter to the big bang theory. The letter was subsequently signed by hundreds of scientists.   "
 * I removed the POV tag because I made the article less POV. If anyone wants to add to my "Big Bang Dissent and Criticisms" section they are free to do so. ken 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * I was worried for a bit that the website, www.cosmologystatement.org, might be fake but I have confirmed the article in question was published in the New Scientist as "Bucking the big bang" by E. Lerner.  Mi kk er (...) 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever - it's still a blip on the cosmology landscape and should not be given to much weight. Looking at the list the big guns are all missing and that must count for a lot in a summary article such as this. Whilst I agree dissenting views must be included, undue weight is always a problem. The Big Bang is the best we have but there are real problems with it which most astrophysicists acknowledge - however that doesn't make it wrong but in need of refining - something explained very well in this article. There should be some mention of the nonstandard cosmologies (which I would much prefer to call alternative cosmologies as that would narrow the field and leave the creationists out) and there probably should be a brief mention of the creationist cosmologies themselves (for completeness) - but these should be minor footnotes and not a separate section. Sophia  17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been gone on vacation, and once again people aren't addressing the same points I've repeated over and over throughout this talk page, and its archives. So one more time:

How can I explain Special Relativity, the FLRW metric, the Cosmic Background Radiation, inflation etc.? I can't. Others can, and I think I can explain asymmetry, but that isn't why we're here. See the second info box at the top of this talk page. Then reflect on why we had to put it there.

"Right now the article is POV skewed with no dissenting opinions given." But if you guys couldn't find the dissenting opinions in the article, then how could you move them into the new section? The 7 subheadings about "problems" are also dissent and rebuttal.

"An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" has been presented as news almost every time we go around this merry-go-round. It's already linked from non-standard cosmology which is linked from Big Bang.

The current version has more dissent and less rebuttal to the dissent. You didn't ask if there was ENOUGH dissent in the article, but that question was best explored at Talk:Big Bang/Archive5.

Maybe I'm wrong about the article and maybe the Big Bang itself is wrong. In any case, I hope we can start addressing each other's actual positions. Art LaPella 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A link "Non-standard cosmology" does in no way hint at such a big opposition; thus it was apparently underpresented. Harald88 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To say there was only a link to non-standard cosmology would seem to ignore my paragraph about dissenting opinions and 7 subheadings. To say it was underpresented would seem to ignore my paragraph linking to Talk:Big Bang/Archive5. I hope we can start addressing each other's actual positions. Art LaPella 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the creation of the "criticisms" section since it is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. We have had this discussion before. If you can find justification for reintroducing this kind of advocacy by prominent cosmologists, do so. However, citing the minority opinions of Arp, Lerner, etc. as justification will not fly. These people are not important enough to the subject to warrant inclusion in standard references or textbooks so they don't warrant discussion here as such. We have a page for nonstandard cosmologies and pages on each of these advocates and their ideas. Edit there, not here. --ScienceApologist 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That argumentation fails on the suggestion that textbooks as written by a certain scientific clique would provide a NPOV; that's obviously a misrepresentation of facts. Such opposition by in largte part expert scientists is obviously very notable, and the paragraph made the article definitely much more NPOV; much more than it was, with the indoctrination-style intro to which was reverted. Thus, in the context of the above discussion I put the POV banner in place. Harald88 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag as it's completely unnecessary. There is no significant opposition to the BB theory despite the problems with it - all of which are covered in this article. Alternatives exist with niche followings that must not be over played without falling foul of undue weight. The article as it stands is a fair representation of BB theory in the astrophysical world. The fact that misunderstandings by lay people and religious agendas are not overblown is what makes it NPOV. Sophia  19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reinstated: you obviously misread the meaning of the NPOV banner! It is an acknowledgement of this dispute; removing it implies to deny that this dispute is happening. Harald88 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What you or I squable over on the talk page is irrelevant - the NPOV banner is for when there is a documented dispute over the article contents. I have seen nothing on this talk page to back up the view that the current article does not give a fair hearing to it's detractors that is proportional to their weight in the astrophysics world. It is a misuse of the tag to apply it because your pet view is not given the time you think it deserves. Please come up with more than a 2 year old open letter signed by no significant cosmologists. Sophia  20:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, the article is not about "Big Bang in the astrophysics world"! The world is bigger than that, and Wikipedia is not meant to be so limited in scope.
 * Note that I have no "pet view" in this context; perhaps you are trying to protect your own? I try to impose WP:NPOV, which commands appropriate representation of all notable pet views. Harald88 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no signs other than the assertations of Harald88 that this article is biased. The article seems to go to great lengths to list problems and inconsistancies with the theory. Jefffire 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does say that expanding space has been "observed" in the first few sentences. That seems intentionally misleading.  All that has been observed is light and particles.  Even if there WERE stretching of space, you wouldn't observe it.


 * The article also does not list ideas in an order where it is clearly stated what assumptions were made; what are the axioms, and what are concluded from these axioms. In most other fields, one starts with an observation and/or set of assumptions.  Instead of saying you "assume" the FLRW metric, you seem to have adopted it as though you know it from experience.


 * We assume that things fall, or we assume that we can't see at night. With enough experience, these assumptions transform into beliefs.  We accept these things as valid because we take them from repeated observations--not from deductive reasoning.  Perhaps you feel you know the FLRW metric from experience, but your experience is having your grade based on being able to express it correctly.  You have no corroborating experience based in the physical world.  But what has happened is that you believe the FLRW metric with the same faith that you believe that things fall or that we can't see in the dark.  In fact, it would be easier for you to consider a world where things don't fall, or where you can see in the dark than it would be for you to conceive of a universe where a homogeneous distribution of matter has no effect on the warping of space.


 * Also, citing the minority opinions of people who see that this theory is completely flawed is about the best we can do. We certainly cannot "cite" your lack of evidence.  Where is your lack of evidence published?  How could you publish your lack of evidence?  Your lack of evidence is not cite-able.


 * Finally, I have cited a very well-respected source, which is often given credit for motivating the Big Bang model. "Relativity, Gravitation, and World Structure," by A.E. Milne which does give a self-consistent cosmology and has been slandered relentlessly by cosmologists.  This book is a much more effective minority opinion than that given by the Open Letter to the Scientific Community, because it gives the answer which "most scientists and mathematicions thinks is impossible."  In any case, it will not fare well as long as you do not let go a few of your assumptions.  Milne's model does not work in the FLRW metric, and it shouldn't.  It's not supposed to.  It's not designed that way.


 * I find it somewhat annoying that "The Big Bang" are good words for what could be a good theory, but instead have become a misnomer for a bad theory. Why don't you call your theory the "Rubber Bang" or the "Infinite Expanding Spatial Model?"  Something that would fit it, instead of taking laypeople's words and then insulting them when they use these words for what they actually should mean?  It reminds me of Orwell's 1984 when people couldn't think straight because all their words had been redefined or removed from their vocabulary. JDoolin 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I still can't find any acknowledgment of Wikipedia policies in the above. Even if 98% of all scientists wrongly write as if expanding space has been observed and the FLRW metric is known from experience, without any evidence and relentlessly slander Mr. Milne, then that's the view Wikipedia should report. Correcting those alleged errors should come from scientists among themselves, not through Wikipedia which is much more likely to introduce errors than to correct them. Nobody reads this article to learn what we think, they want to learn what everybody thinks. Art LaPella 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, nobody here claims that Wikipedia should not report on the view that the Big Bang happened. But I may be mistaken, and is so, please point out which editor demands that!
 * Instead, the debate is about the presentation of the minority view of a notable number of relevant scientists who have a differing opinion. Obviuously the debate has not been settled, but again the NPOV banner has been removed! I'll try a compromise solution, but I will reinstall the banner if it is reverted. Harald88 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree no editor demands that Wikipedia should not report on the view that the Big Bang happened. I too was writing about presentation: the majority view presentation shouldn't be rewritten as suggested by JDoolin, whose critique is based on the assertion that the majority view is wrong. We should ideally do the same presentation regardless of who we think is wrong. We should present the majority view the way the majority presents it, combined with minority criticism when appropriate. Art LaPella 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On that we fully agree. For such neutral renditions neither the version by JDoolin, not the version by SA is suited - the last version is even one of the best examples of anti-NPOV propaganda that I have seen in recent time: "There currently are very few researchers who doubt the Big Bang occurred; those who do are often adherents to non-standard cosmologies of their own invention."!


 * Oh, maybe a little. How would I express that? "very few" emphasizes half-empty over half-full, but it looks necessary to say it's a relatively small minority. "adherents to non-standard cosmologies of their own invention"? My only experience is on Wikipedia, but my guess is that if all the mainstream cosmologists went away, the alternative people would argue more loudly than ever - with each other. At least the previous post doesn't ignore anything I've said before, and I'll let the rest of you debate that one. Art LaPella 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is partly the content (unwarranted, probably exaggerated statements), and partly the phrasing. One can say the same thing in different ways, and propaganda is to present it in such a way that it the reader tends to think either better or less good of the subject matter than is carried by the facts. Harald88 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, which is why I thought about how I would say it. ScienceApologist may agree with you somewhat, since he removed the second half of the sentence you quoted. Art LaPella 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (to reader: the following comment means agreement with my comment stamped 05:19) Art LaPella 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - most active astrophysicists will talk about the problems with the simple BB model but accept that on the whole it exlains observations better than anything else we have. Whatever the pet projects of wikipedians this article must reflect the overall view. Sophia  06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoth Harald88: "minority view of a notable number of relevant scientists who have a differing opinion" --> What makes their number notable? There are more than one thousand astronomers and cosmologists who agree on the Big Bang. The Open Letter tries to count "hundreds" of scientists, but on careful evaluation there are probably something like less than 15 researchers who are active in cosmological research who signed this statement. We mention the nonstandard cosmology proponents in proportion to the prominence of their arguments in this article. In fact, we give them more space than we should if you were to use the criterion ratio of peer review text that supports the Big Bang to peer review text that disputes it. By my rough estimation, less than 0.01% of peer review articles regarding cosmology dispute the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again: obviously it's about presentation, and not about space. Harald88 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But there is no alternative presentation that takes up the same amount of space as the current article that I've seen. The only alternative was one which promoted the dispute to a new section -- hardly in keeping with undue weight. Since no one has proposed an alternative wording of the sentences dealing with nonstandard opinions, I submit that there really is no dispute, just sour grapes. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's amazing that you didn't notice it, since you did delete it! And there sure is a dispute; your last edit is as non-neutral (and unencyclopedic) as possible without becoming overly conspicuous. Harald88 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit increased the size of the coverage on this subject. I stand by my objections. Mention of the Open Letter is not appropriately made in this article. Check the archives for more discussion on this subject. --ScienceApologist 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't confuse proper sourcing of content (which in your version is lacking) with content itself. The last versions have roughly equal size; only mine is better sourced and more accurate. Harald88 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree and have shown why I disagree. At least one other editor agrees with me. --ScienceApologist 15:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Your edit increased the size of the coverage on" the Open Letter. "The last versions have roughly equal size". Both true. Art LaPella 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comments that this article is rather POV. I don't claim to be a scientist or anything. I came by the article to just read about it without really knowing anything on the subject. But the article frankly really does read like the title should be 'The Big Bang _LAW_'. While it does list some disputes of the theory, the tone with which these are presented is as if these disputes were laughable. This same tone is prevalent throughout the article, and the message I got from reading it is 'Big bang is undeniably correct. Everyone agrees except for a couple of silly scientists here and there who don't know what they're talking about.' Which seems pretty strange to me considering how much hand waving there seems to be in any of the competing theories, including big bang. The proclamation feels quite arrogant and political. 24.23.231.54 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course what does or doesn't make it POV is whether it's true that "everyone agrees except for a couple of silly scientists...", not whether you think there is hand waving in the Big Bang theory. Verifiability. Art LaPella 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly not the only thing that matters and it even wasn't his/her point if I read it well. User 24.23.231.54 is correct in noticing that a non-neutral, arrogant and political tone violates WP:NPOV. Harald88 11:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right about one thing - "the tone with which [disputes] are presented" is debatable under NPOV apart from the question of how much attention should be given to a small minority. Oops. But it should be OK to say that virtually all professional astronomers support the Big Bang. Also, the user did indeed emphasize "hand waving there seems to be in ... big bang", which is expressing a POV, not criticizing the balance. Art LaPella 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)