Talk:Big Bang/Archive 6

"Critical views" anon contribution
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. --Christopher Thomas 20:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ""

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)

Big bang figure
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)
 * I think we could safely add a "diagram not to scale" logo. On a more serious note, I've usually seen the inflationary period depicted as something with the profile of a curly-bracket ({) leading into the (roughly) linear expansion. I've messaged the user maintaining the image to suggest this. In practice, I'm not sure it's a serious problem given the other approximations in the diagram.--Christopher Thomas 00:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This image was never intended to be to scale, only to illustrate the basic concept of an expanding universe. If a more detailed illustration can be created, go ahead. Fredrik | talk 11:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * People are too concerned with linear scales. If you use the appropriate logarithmic scale the diagram is absolutely correct. Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 15:06 (UTC)
 * This turns out not to be the case, as the inflationary period didn't follow a power law expansion, and (as Pdn noted) isn't shown in any form on the diagram. I personally don't see any point in changing the figure, but the fact remains that it is at best a stylized representation.--Christopher Thomas 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)
 * It is true that there has to be a disconnect between the "singularity" and the expansion for this to be correct, but that's hardly the point -- we make graphs like that all the time. To be a perfectly correct representation, you'd probably have to make the scale infinite (just as on a logarithmic scale there is an infinite distance between zero and one). Joshuaschroeder 29 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the bare-bones depiction in the diagram. It shows only the essential theory, the heart of the matter. And the true growth curve is open to debate, anyway.
 * Chris Mid 29 June 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Changes to 4.1 Hubble's law expansion
Made changes in section, Hubble's law expansion


 * 1) Removed reference to Doppler shift. Expansion is not a Doppler effect, and it is an all-to-common misconception that should not be reinforced. See Redshift.
 * 2) Added a conclusion summarizing how this evidence implies the Big Bang.
 * 3) Tightened up various phrasing and standardized references to named laws/constants, including in the title.

Chris Mid 30 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)


 * I've clarified some of the Hubble expansion phrasing to show more clearly how the expansion required a Big Bang (it's a time-reversal of the same scenario that forces matter to collapse to a singularity past a certain density). Good work on the rewrite, and I hope that it continues to go smoothly! --Christopher Thomas 30 June 2005 00:04 (UTC)


 * Hi, Christopher. I've been noticing your posts near mine lately, cause I usually find them right-on. So, "Hail, and well met." But I'm going to disagree with your corrections to my corrections.


 * While I think your additions are correct, I think they are mostly covered elsewhere in the article, especially in Overview and Theoretical Underpinnings. This section is about evidence, and as it stood it only needed a little explanation of how this evidence fits in. Myself, I was trying hard to be a terse as possible. I almost deleted my own caveat about "excepting closer objects...", but the sentence would have been literally incorrect without it.


 * Are your points necessary to make the connection? I believe that the Big Bang is self-evident without referencing Relativity, and I find the reference distracting from the simple idea that if things are flying apart they were once together.


 * Some of your good points here are not clearly explained within the other sections I mentioned. So, I would like your agreeement to revert this section to my edits, while you can clarify the theory sections. Then we can work from a clean slate on any remaining flaws in my text.


 * Remember our posts, above, where we say the opening diagram is appropriate for it's purpose? I believe this fits in that editorial philosophy.
 * Chris Mid 30 June 2005 01:55 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the additions for most of the reason Chris Mid made. I also readded the doppler shift which is a physically correct explanation for the redshift. The doppler shift works because a Lorentz invariant fluid like spacetime carries Galilean relativity along with it and therefore the Doppler Effect for any wave that propogates through it, be it a photon, graviton, or anything else. While one can certainly model the redshift without appealing to the Doppler effect it is definitely the most simple and comprehensible conceptual explanation for the effect. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 02:05 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's important to note that GR _requires_ the expansion to have begun at a point. Otherwise, one can validly object that an extremely compact universe isn't necessarily an inevitable conclusion. By all means, phrase this more tersely, but I feel the distinction is vital. Re. us frequently editing similar articles, I think that's mainly just because of similar watchlists. --Christopher Thomas 30 June 2005 02:23 (UTC)
 * While the Friedmann Equations are only derivable in their full detail from GR considerations, that really doesn't belong in the evidencev section. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 02:28 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for equations to be added to that section. Merely some short statement that gives confidence the "inevitable" line isn't pulled out of thin air. I've spoken to enough people who don't understand science to know that this would otherwise set off their "scientists are talking out of their tails" flags (disturbingly common mindset). By all means, keep any further discussion later in the article.--Christopher Thomas 30 June 2005 02:40 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've re-checked the diffs, and feel foolish now. If the whole paragraph is gone, the explanation of its last sentence isn't terribly relevant :). --Christopher Thomas 30 June 2005 02:49 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about what you really want here. Do you think that the Theoretical Underpinnings section doesn't spell out where the inevitability comes from well enough? The GR "inevitability" argument comes from postulating an invariant metric. The details of the different metric components and what dependencies they can have are boring indeed, but we can go through them all if you want. I think, though, that mentioning Weyl's postulate and the three fundamental assumptions gives the framework needed. We might make a statement in that section that makes it more explicit that you use these assumptions/postulates within the construct of general relativity, but in reality you get an expanding universe in Newtonian limits too so while the "correct" way to do it is to use Einstein's Equations and work from there, I'm not sure that harping on this point is informative from an encyclopedia point of view. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)


 * The original paragraph that I'd modified had contained the sentence "this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the observable universe was once all in one place". I felt that the term "inevitable" required justification, so I added a brief explanation of _why_ it was felt to be inevitable. The paragraph containing this sentence was later removed, making my objections to its original phrasing moot point. I hadn't realized that the entire paragraph had been removed when making my original reply to your statement about removal (I'd thought it had been rolled back to its old phrasing; serves me right for not checking the diffs carefully). I hope this adequately explains my comments to date. While I feel, on re-reading the article, that there should be a short note in section 4.1 indicating _why_ the Hubble expansion was taken as evidence for the big bang (which could simply note that it matched one of the solutions mentioned in the "history" section), I don't feel strongly enough about that to argue further about article content. I apologize for the confusion caused by my not reading the change history carefully enough. --Christopher Thomas 30 June 2005 03:11 (UTC)

Question
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.


 * The singularity was "everywhere". Each observer is appearantly at the center of the the outward movement. --Pjacobi 19:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. How exactly is that possible? I was under the impression that the Big Bang was a single explosion at one point in space and time. Thank you for answering my questions. Brasswatchman July 30, 2005 4:15 PM EST.


 * This is a very common misconception. You're picturing the "bang" as everything moving away from a single point. Picture a rubber balloon, and consider the surface of the balloon (not the interior) to be analogous to "space". Draw spots on the surface of the balloon to represent galaxies. When you inflate the balloon, the dots will all move away from each other as space (the surface of the balloon) expands. There's no one point on the surface of the balloon that they're moving away from. The Big Bang was at a single point in space and time, but only because all of space and time was a single point. Hope that helps a little bit. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  22:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorted. That is a fantastic metaphor, by the way. It seems to me that it really should go in the main article, or in some article to explain this question. Thank you both very much for your help. Brasswatchman

Gamow and "prediction"
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)


 * Plautus, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is wrong. Why don't you actually go and read Gamow's papers? Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not taking "shots in the dark." Gamow predicted the CMB in 1948, but did not estimate its temperature. Alpher and Herman did, the same year, and calculated 5K.
 * The term "background" means the radiation was emitted before decoupling, when structures first began to form in the universe. –Joke137 22:24, 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

Opening Paragraph
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.'''


 * Sounds like original research to me Plautus Fred Bauder 21:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * What sounds like original research? Plautus satire 02:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see No original research. The rewrite of the introduction that you've proposed would be a rather radical change factually and would suggest that the theory (as correctly stated) is not widely accepted by the scientific community. Both of these are unacceptable. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  02:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the Big Bang theory makes testable hypotheses, and (combined with other theories like inflation) is largely confirmed by validation of these hypotheses. Also, the dictionary is not a good place to look for a proper treatment of the notion of "space" in the context of physics and mathematics. To understand what is meant by the expansion of space, you'll need to look in a physics textbook. Your revision of the opening paragraph is unfortunately either misleading or factually incorrect; it's hard to tell from how it's written. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  22:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * You bring up a common misconception. A circle is finite in length (along its circumference), but it does not have an "edge" in any sense relevant to this discussion. That is, there is no beginning and end to a circle. Go up a dimension, and the same thing applies to spheres. There's no "edge" unless you cut it somehow. Go up further dimensions to get into the kinds of spaces that modern physics deals with, and the analogy holds. Therefore, this is not a useful test in the way that you've phrased it.


 * One way you may be able to determine if the Universe is finite is to go (or see) "around" it, in the sense that you can go around the Earth. If you can go in a straight line and eventually get back (or see forward) to where you started, you're living in a finite space. At the very limits of the visible universe, we haven't seen any copies of objects in the foreground, so it doesn't seem like light is going in circles through it (as you might circle the Earth). So even in this better-phrased test, it's inconclusive. That's why we have to look at more fundamental properties like the total mass in the Universe and how quickly it appears to be expanding in order to determine whether or not it's closed. Hope that helps! &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  02:41, 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
 * Who is this guy? Egg troll? Seems like an AST to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of matter
Actually editor 161.28.196.13 (diff: ) 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)


 * I thought that might be what 161. was trying to get at, but I think it needs to be substantially reworded if it's ambiguous. The (nested!) parenthetical that 161. tried to add just seemed to make it more confusing and possibly even misleading. In particular, it seems to me (though IANAP) that it's not right to draw that sort of distinction between "space" (which to a layman is empty) and "matter" (the stuff that's "in" space) particularly in this context. But then at that level, is it even worth trying to mention matter? Perhaps saying that space expanded is sufficient. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  22:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. If the gas in a baloon "expands", that doesn't imply that the atoms get bigger.  Similarly, if the matter in the universe "expands" it doesn't in any way imply that fundamental particles get bigger.  I have a hard time believing a reasonable person would come to that conclusion.  The expansion of matter is an important image for conveying the big bang to the lay person, and this business about particles not expanding can be clarified elsewhere.  --Doradus 23:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence is before you in the history. It has already been misconstrued in that way.  Perhaps expansion of space carrying matter along with it, or just expansion of space carrying matter, similar to what is in the first illustration box. If that is too unwieldy, just mentioning space might be adequate.  I'll give it a try.  --Blainster 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? It's a long history -- can you give a specific diff?  Thanks.  --Doradus 20:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Under the assumption that Space and Matter are different constituents of the Universe, the article is pretty clear: according to the b.b. theory they both needed to "expand" from the same point-like entity, relative to itself. Matter moves outwards into an expanding Space, without any expansion/enlargement of the actual particles. If space is in fact also Matter (particles), as the single Universal substance, such "expansion" would have implied either (I) an enlargement of the actual particles (or the linkages between them) or (II) a constant supply of extra Matter through this point-like place from somewhere else. Although it may sound counter-intuitive, I don't think that (I) is out of the question since the "speed" of the enlargement could be undetectable. --Lucian 01:37, 9 September 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)


 * The universe is flat and not confined by its visible extent. Joshuaschroeder

big bang theroy should redirect here
When The copyright problem is solved big bang theroy should redirect here. Is it ok to do this now?


 * The usefulness of the article Big bang theroy is not demonstrated, since the title is misspelled, it contains only material copied from another website, and seems intended to duplicate what is already here. It is a prime candidate for deletion, not redirect.  Big Bang theory already redirects here.  --Blainster 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

this article remains a JOKE
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

A bit confused...
... 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)


 * He didnt even consider it recessional velocity! It was latter interpretted by others that his law meant that galaxies are receeding.  This is just another example of the historical innaccuracy of the article, which is why I want it removed from 'featured' status. --Ionized
 * Well, you also want it removed because you don't agree with the Big Bang theory, even though it agrees with the evidence (unlike your plasma theory). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-10 15:26
 * Hello? Agrees with the evidence?  That statement alone proves without a doubt that you have not researched the evidence and its history at all!  Ignore my personal bias and look at the FACTS presented!  Have you even BOTHERED to look at the past talk pages and all the contrary evidence and historical presentations? 'Obviously' not!  My plasma theory?  You people are the most un-informed encyclopedic writers I have ever seen!!!  IFF the article factually and historically represented the story, rather than using already falsified information to 'support' itself, then I wouldnt mind if it was featured, for then it truly would be worthy.  In its current state, the article does disservice to Wikipedia. --Ionized 17:36, August 10, 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)


 * Of course there is nothing new to add, everything has been said in the past two years of talk pages. Just to be sure, I am NOT the one making changes to the BB page.  Also, I left a small comment about PC on your talk page.  If you do not see the evidence against the big bang, you are simply looking at it from a different bias, and there is nothing I or anyone can do to change your view. --Ionized 21:33, August 10, 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)

Origin of premival atom
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.

blah
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)

introduction
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)


 * You may be shocked, but I like your changes to my changes. In any high traffic or controversial (?)  article, we can expect a rapid evolution or devolution, so they require constant monitoring.  --Blainster 22:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I did sense POV in the article
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)


 * You should evaluate more carefully what a scientific theory really means. It is method to describe current observatiosn and predict new ones. It should be falsifiable by future observations. Few assumptions, many predictions, is the gold standard. In all this areas the Big Bang theory in its current incarnation of &Lambda;CDM plus inflation is very good. Whethe the Big Bang "really happened", whether that is something that is subject to physics or philosophy alone, is another question. --Pjacobi 18:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I pretty much know what a scientific theory really is. The current article looks partisan to me, and mind here that I am more supporter of it than User:Ionized's Plasmatic Cosmology. Perhaps we are not reading the same article, when I read it, there are strong statments as to suggest the theory more than one. Reading the history of the discussion, I even realized that one considered the uses of the term hypotheses offending. If those are the sides that participate in the writting of the article, no wonder, sections of the article don't really respect NPOV policy. Fadix 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific as to which statements you find problematic? There are a number of cosmologists who have worked on this article and I think we're at a pretty good NPOV version. Making generalized claims like this isn't very helpful. Joshuaschroeder 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not questioning the accuracy of the article, you make it sound, as if I am doing just that. What I have a problem with, is the way the material is presented, and I provided one example on the vote page. I am not asking a concensus with Ionized, that would be hard to reach, and is not the solution. I just happened to land on this page today, and after reading it, I did find some issues, that are more about the presentation of the material and the tone of the article.


 * I do agree that generalized claims isn't very helpful, but I am sure that my example on the vote page, is a good indication as which kind of statments I have problem with. Fadix 19:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)