Talk:Big Bang/Archive 9

Intro
I have put up an RfC, because I do not thing much progress will be made with the same four characters arguing in circles. Here are the major questions as I see them:
 * Are there enough qualifications in the article? All the participants, to the best of my knowledge, agree that funding and academic positions in cosmology go almost exclusively to big bang proponents. We also seem to agree that there remains a minority of physicists, largely outside of academia, who are actively critical of the big bang.
 * In its stable state, the article has a couple of sentences about opponents in the "Features, Issues and Problems" section which mention the opponents of the big bang, and their attitudes towards its more baroque features (inflation, dark matter, dark energy).


 * Should we include relatively recent, controversial research results
 * such as the low-l multipole debate (A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriga and A. Hamilton, "The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP", Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 063516 arXiv:astro-ph/0307282. D. J. Schwarz, G. D. Starkman, D. Huterer and C. J. Copi, "Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 221301 arXiv:astro-ph/0403353. A. Slosar and U. Seljak, "Assessing the effects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP", Phys. Rev. D70, 083002 (2004). astro-ph/0404567. C. J. Copi, D. Hueterer, D. J. Schwarz and G. D. Starkman, "On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky", arXiv:astro-ph/0508047.) None of the authors of these papers suggest they invalidate the big bang model, although some suggest that it is an unusual effect which may signal new physics. It has been suggested that we include them as a criticism.
 * Such as an (as-yet) not peer reviewed paper of Elerner, "Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF" arXiv:astro-ph/0509611 which is highly critical of the big bang (in particular, the theory of an expanding universe), but has appeared less than two months ago and has not undergone peer-review.
 * Such as the month-and-a-half old paper (R. Lieu, J. P. D. Mittaz and S.-N. Zhang "Detailed WMAP/X-ray comparison of 31 randomly selected nearby clusters of galaxies - incomplete Sunyaev-Zel'dovich silhouette" arXiv:astro-ph/0510160) which is also highly critical, has not been peer-reviewed, but is not written by contributors to Wikipedia.
 * What, if anything, should we say about recent discordant data (I think it is at roughly the two-standard deviation or one in twenty level) for the abundance of Lithium-7? arXiv:astro-ph/0501591
 * In general, what should be reasonable criteria for including recent, controversial research results in an article about a theory such as the big bang, about which thousands of articles are published each year?

–Joke137 15:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (PS. if you disagree with my statement of the controversy, I would appreciate it if you could add your comments below to leave my statement whole.)
 * Are the present sections on some of the unsolved problems of the big bang (inflation, dark matter, dark energy and especially baryon asymmetry) sufficient, or do criticisms need to be increased, or interspersed throughout the main text of the article?
 * Did cosmologists predict the CMB from the big bang theory? Is the single world "qualitative" in the introduction adequate, or do we need to include the fact that they didn't predict the exact temperature? If so, where?


 * The "controversial" nature of research is not a grounds for exclusion, especially if it is noted as such in some way. JDR 17:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been excluded, but is reported in the article in a fair and balanced manner. Joshuaschroeder 17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thread one

 * I vote for keeping this article about the Big Bang. Alternative models (such as plasma cosmology) should be linked from a (relatively brief) section about alternative views. According to WP:NPOV, in the "pseudoscience" section, article space is supposed to reflect the relative fraction of the scientific community that supports a given view. As the vast majority of publications - and textbooks - state that the big bang model is the most accepted model of the early universe, I don't think giving plasma cosmology a large amount of space at Big Bang is justified. Allegations of systemic bias in the scientific community are, frankly, off-topic. --Christopher Thomas 17:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thomas, the competing views are not pseudoscience, aka., a field not of science but protraying themselves as such .... it is actual competing scientific theories, though the BB is given the limelight (for various reason, not to least of that it is associated with other creation myths).
 * And ... please explain how is the allegations of systemic bias in the scientific community off-topic? They are at the heart of this topic and part of the dispute.
 * Sincerely, JDR 17:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that plasma cosmology was pseudoscience. I merely pointed readers to the section of WP:NPOV that describes how much space should be given to dissenting views in science articles. Discussion of systemic bias is off-topic because discussing it doesn't change the number of scientists in either camp. You can argue that the numbers would be different if processes were different, but playing "what-if" leads to no solid conclusions. Nobody is disputing that plasma cosmology is notable enough to get a mention as a dissenting view. For anything more than that in the Big Bang article, you're going to have to wait until you succeed in popularizing it in the scientific community. --Christopher Thomas 17:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a "popular" idea in the scientific community (though not as much as the BB) and is commonly known in the laymen community ... it though is not widely accepted in Peer-review .... and that is the crux of the disagreement. JDR 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * According to Google scholar, which I admit is not the last word on anything, there are 30,500 papers containing "big bang" and 34 containing "plasma cosmology" . That hardly qualifies as popular. –Joke137 19:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the "though is not widely accepted in Peer-review"? Scholar.google surveys Peer-review articles mostly .... I do not find it surprising that the result was low .... infact, the 34 seems to be good (understanding that Scholar.google's spider has not made it very comprehensive currently; I have drawn nothing in searches of common topic in S.g). JDR 20:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss that. I guess I don't see how one would define "popularity in the scientific community" other than through articles published. –Joke137 21:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Joke137's comment pretty much sums up the point. In order to make judgements on how accepted an idea is in the scientific community, you need a (reasonably) objective yardstick to measure it with. Peer-reviewed publications, while an imperfect yardstick, is the best one available. Relax requirements for review, and you get everything from harmonics theory to autodynamics to creation science in the queue. JDR, you argue about bias, but I'm not convinced that it would affect the count significantly. The whole point of science is that views change when sufficient evidence is presented. Remember, the Big Bang model itself was laughed at when it was first proposed, yet it accumulated enough evidence to get published and popularize its view. This is normal for science. To claim that there is systematic suppression of unorthodox ideas to the degree that a majority or near-majority can be turned into a thousands-to-dozens minority stretches credibility. --Christopher Thomas 21:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thread two

 * I would tend to think that given the title of this article that it should confine itself to the Big Bang hypothesis, providing See also links for other views. The inclusion of the steady state model is justified from a historical perspective, but other less developed criticisms should not be permitted to obscure a layman’s understanding of the core ideas.
 * That is the fundamental role of an encyclopedia; to provide an understanding of a concept to those outside the field of inquiry, not to be a forum for debate. I have followed this disagreement since its inception here and at plasma cosmology, and I am left with the impression that some feel that somehow the inclusion of marginal ideas in Wikipdeia serves to give those concepts more weight than they would otherwise warrant among the field’s community. This clearly violates the spirit if not the letter of policy in this place.
 * Furthermore, even if the Big Bang hypothesis was found to be fundamentally wrong tomorrow, this article should not be cluttered with opposing theories; only the mention of that fact, how it was determined, and links out to the current contenders. For a good example of how this should be done see: Luminiferous aether. DV8 2XL 17:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "to provide an understanding of a concept to those outside the field of inquiry, not to be a forum for debate"? Yes wikipedia is not a battleground .... but to understand the concepts and issues to those outside the field of inquiry the more or less obvious criticisms and problems with the concepts and issues should be noted. To gloss over issues is not helpful to those outside the field of inquiry.
 * Also of note, Wikipedia is not only a encyclopedia, but more .... Sincerely, JDR 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since a clearinghouse for other views are covered on the non-standard cosmology page, would you say right now, DV8 2XL, that the article sufficiently provides for references to the "alternatives"? -- Joshuaschroeder 17:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But the page that is linked to are cosmological framework scientific (eg., quais-steady state and plasma cosmology) and non-scientific (eg., Creationist ideas) .... thus lumping in viable and competing theories with theories that are not viable scientifically!JDR 17:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, people it’s time for a reality check. Nobody working in any field or serious student (above high school) consults Wikipedia on matters of fact in that field. Nobody. The reasons are obvious and don’t need to be recited. Consequently it is clear that anyone pushing a unique or non-standard POV is doing so only with the intention of broadcasting it to a wider audience. Stripped of all the obscuring rhetoric, this argument is about presenting a minority idea to the public in a manor that gives the impression that its status is equal to the more widely held one.  And this is quite simply not the case. Were Wikipedia closed or limited I would have some sympathy for this effort (although I add in haste I still would not support it) but this is not the case. Alternative views can be presented in their own articles, limited only by general policies that demand an honest and neutral treatment.
 * Finally, to answer the question above: yes, the article sufficiently provides for references to the alternatives. DV8 2XL 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a unique view .... as the page http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html at Los Alamos National Laboratory is one example ... this is not a "minority" idea, and, even if it was, it is a significant minority. JDR 20:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jesus weeps. I did not state it was a unique view. And something is ether in the minority or it is in the majority; these are mutually exclusive terms. By any rational criteria Plasma Cosmology is a minority view. You wouldn’t need to push it here against opposition if it were not. DV8 2XL 20:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Minority? 3,330,000 (PC);  29,000,000 (BB) = 11% (though literal string 15,500 ("PC");  9,600,000 ("BB") = .1%) ...  7,380 google scholar (34 literal though) ... at google books there are 54 pages on "Plasma Cosmology" (including The Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe) ... and ... 256 threads in Usenet ....
 * As to "wouldn't need to push it here against opposition if it were not", not .... it's just not highly reguarded by BB apologists and they attack attack other theories that don't go with their view.
 * Sincerely, JDR 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The tragedy of this from my perspective is that I like Plasma Cosmology, it is an elegant and evocative hypothesis, and in my heart I hope it “wins” in the long run. This however does not blind me to the fact that it has a long way to go, and that it is not the widely excepted view. Getting it to that point is going to take much more effort in more productive endeavors than driving it up BB supporter’s noses in places like this. A nonsensical dispute like this gives the whole study of PC an aura of desperation, and is frankly beginning to take on the same tone as the Scientific Creationism arguments. Others are watching, and may come to similar conclusions to the determent of the theory in the Public Mind.DV8 2XL 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Because the BB proponents do not adhere to the NPOV in wikipedia and that a point of order to be neutral is made that opposing views (such as Plasma Cosmology and the Quasi Steady State) are going to be looked down on? That's nonsensical. JDR
 * No I'm afraid that's the way it will play. BB has the advantage of being generally perceived as the scientific standard (no I don't like that phrase myself, but it does cover it), all others will be seen in competition. As I said no rational worker in this field will come here to do research. Those people that do will come from outside and will examine this argument and and not see BB pushing POV by not giving opposing views equal time in an article on Big Bang; because this discussion is at BB and about what is proper to put in BB, not the activities of its proponents elsewhere. Like it or not right now, right here PC proponents are looking a little hysterical. Anyway my last post was more a lament and a plea than an argument.I will curb myself from now on. DV8 2XL 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thread three

 * You have to give us some criteria for deciding which framerworks are scientific and which are not scientific. If Wikipedia is as neutral as you claim then the best we can do is report mainstream and outside the mainstream. That would necessitate inclusion of creationist nonsense as well. Just because you personally don't like a particular objection doesn't mean that your objection is encyclopedic. There is, of course, a difference between people who develop ideas out of religious zealotry and those who develop them out of grudges, history, or their own judgements, but I don't see how the former can be rightly called non-scientific while the latter is called scientific since neither is mainstream. While I think plasma cosmology is far less controversial than Humphreys' white hole cosmology, I don't see how we can claim that his criticisms are somehow less notable or less "scientific" than the criticisms of Lerner. Please let me know if you have another way of looking at this. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Joshua, don't try and attempt to confuse scientific competitors with non-scientific competitors. Wikipedia is to be neutral but to confuse the scientific with the non-scientific is not a NPOV! JDR 17:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to provide a citation showing that the creationist cosmologies in question are "non-scientific" compared to the other cosmologies on the non-standard cosmologies page. --Joshuaschroeder 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the fricken wikipedia article and alleave your ignorance! The creationism cosmology article states it (pseudoscience) .... shees! JDR 17:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (eg, Creationist cosmologies are pseudoscientific arguments by various creationists)
 * And if you look at the criticisms on the pseudoscience page you will find that this characterization doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is more-or-less scientific than any other idea. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF? How does "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific" not meant that it the characterization doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is more-or-less scientific than any other idea?!?!? You are confusing protoscience with pseudoscience I believe .... one is not scientific and one is ... I would hope you can tell the diference! Pointing to the other article and including the non-scientific with the scientific is to attempt to make some guilt by association. Your note to the criticism section (eg., "The term "pseudoscience" removes the legitimacy afforded by the category "science"; leaving such a labeled body of theory to try to obtain legitimacy on other grounds") only reinforces the point that you believe (and are editing in a way to confuse readers) that the other scientific theories that go against the BB are "not true" science. JDR 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the criticism section of the pseudoscience page. The means by which someone evaluates whether something is a protoscience or a pseudoscience is nebulous at best and generally arbitrary at worst. There is no objective way to determine that one outside the mainstream view is a pseudoscience and another is a protoscience other than to appeal to idealizations and what is ultimately subjective criteria. -- Joshuaschroeder 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thread four
If we are going to make any progress, perhaps we ought to confine the discussion to the points above. I don't think anybody is arguing for including an extensive section on plasma cosmology, nor a section on pseudoscientific critiques. It is more of a question of how much statments of need to be qualified (e.g. "proponents of the big bang assert...") and now much weight should be given to discordant data and recent claims of flaws in the big bang model. –Joke137 18:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree mostly Joker (though confining the discussion to the points does not solve the POV editing entirely by BB apologists and may limit the overall progress to neutrality) .... I do not think that there should be a "extensive section" but there should be a non-partisan section on scientific critiques and views (with the main 2 are the Quasi-SS and plasma cosmology from my unbderstanding) (and, to some extent but seperate from the scientific ones, acknoledgement of pseudoscientific critiques) ... and it is question of how much statments of need to be qualified (explicitly state who thinks what and who thinks that this or that is wrong) and now much weight should be given to information that is in harmony with the big bang and the data that not in agreement with the Big Bang.  BUT ... it is not just "recent claims of flaws" in the Big Bang model ... there is historical flaws in the Big Bang that need to be pointed out. And as I sated before .... any "controversial" nature of research is not a grounds for exclusion of information, especially if it is noted as such in some way.   Sincerely, JDR
 * For now, I only want to address one point listed at the beginning of this section: The inclusion of "breakink news". Whereas it is rarely a problem to add a newly discovered Saturn moon-let minutes after the announcements, this doesn't apply to papers in cosmology. A standard encyclopedia would always choose the safe side and only excerpt from textbooks, but Wikipedia usually tries to be more up to date. But there is a reasonable limit to this. Hundreds of new papers a month hit the preprint servers. Deciding ourselves which to included is near to original research. But going after the echo in popular astronomy newstickers or press, is an even more skewed sample. For obvious reasons, this will select the papers with the most bizarre claims. O.K. some of these claims may come out to something, but disasters like astro-ph/0507619 are common and putting this into Wikipedia gives undue weight. Of course some people will prefer even more skewed samples, like those promoted by the Alternative Cosmology Group. In summary: please don't add papers, for which no followup is available. --Pjacobi
 * "this doesn't apply to papers in cosmology"? ... what are the exact criteria to meet a "papers followup" standard? This smacks me as an attempt to exclude relevant information that is available and is reliant on the systematic bias of peer-review. Sincerely, JDR 20:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a systemic bias against hasty inclusion of material whose worthiness cannot be judged yet. --Pjacobi 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When, if ever, can the "worthiness" be determined? By whom? How long is "hasty"?
 * If certian answers are from the peer-review system, then you are relying in the "systemic bias" to defend a undefensible position. Again ... this seems academic elitism and exclusionatory of relevant information. JDR 20:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think your own judgements are preferable over the judgements of the peer review system, you have a huge problem. Not that the peer review system is without errors (most of which will be corrected), see Bogdanov Affair. But I wasn't talking peer review system here, but waiting for other researchers picking up the thread. If no one cites the paper, it is most likely not really relevant. If citations begin to appear, you can see how the arguments are valued. --Pjacobi


 * I am glad to see that some people acknowledge that the peer review system is not without errors. YMMV on the "most likely" though. And don't try to make it as if I'm being a high and mighty judge ... because I am not .... I am stating that papers that do not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time do not get cited but can be preferable over the judgements of the "peer review system". Much of Hannes Alfvén own work (not cosmology) is typical of such material. Sincerely, JDR 21:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Alfvén is a good example of how things should be included in Wikipedia, in my opinion. His research in MHD and plasmas is reported in Wikipedia well. The point is that with hundreds of papers coming out each month each purporting to explain different aspects of cosmology, there really is no standard way to include the information in a digest setting such as this. We need to be judicious in our selection of ideas for inclusion. In general, the rule of thumb I used when rewriting this article a year ago was that if something hasn't made it into a review article or a layman's summary yet, it should be excluded. This wouldn't apply to pages such as "plasma cosmology" which are small and driven by individual researchers. Including obscure and possibly incorrect information without the adequate qualification is more problematic than being completely inclusionist. The Big Bang became a featured article because we excluded a lot of information and made editorial judgements as to what was important. This discussion helps in establishing what is important. Consensus seems to be that it is important to maintain the Big Bang as the paradigmatic framework that it currently functions as. After all, this is Wikipedia and if tomorrow we discovered that the Big Bang was wrong, the article would change to reflect this. --Joshuaschroeder 14:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the peer review system is not without errors, because plenty of rubbish gets published and is never refuted: an author merely needs to be persistent and moderately competent. Citations are a better test, but again are imperfect: some correct and important articles are ignored for years. Nonetheless, I think the system eventually sorts the wheat from the chaff. Do you have a better test to propose? –Joke137 21:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and criticisms should be evaluated within a scientific context, which very much includes peer review. The Big Bang theory has been around for a long time so it seems logical to concentrate on the points which are well established, especially in this article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi and Jitse Niesen have beautifully summarized my own views about these things. It is not the place of Wikipedia to judge radical new scientific claims as they appear (although certain things that appear in the news generally need at least to be mentioned), but rather to wait for scientists to thresh things out for themselves. If this means perpetuating the systematic bias of academia, then I say fine: it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to try to counter such a bias, nor is it really possible to establish a "neutral" POV by trying to compensate for such a bias. What more neutral standard can you use to replace it? Leave the allegations of bias in academia to the article about the subject. –Joke137 21:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be neutral and not further bias. Might does not make right ... but mob rule does win out in wikipedia. Sincerely, JDR 21:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by consensus. That's what we're building and its heading against your perspective on what is balanced. It is only mob-rule when you are in the minority. Joshuaschroeder 23:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * consensus? If there is a "consensus" against facts and the facts suffers ... that's ok? YMMV on that ...
 * That's what happening ... Wikipedia (via it's biased contributors) may go against facts ... and "mob rule" rarely leads to "balance" (and a reason why democracies don't exist in the world (and is pointed out in WP:ISNOT)). It is only "mob-rule" when the "consensus fromers" ignore "Wikipedia's Bill of rights ". JDR


 * At some point, you may have to come to terms with the fact that you are underinformed about these subjects and are an enthusiastic promulgator of error, User:Reddi. Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Attackin me does nothing for you fallacious stances, trollish behavior, and POV editing .... as in reguard to you, I'll take the top-of-the-page tag warning. Sincerely, JDR

Agreement poor for helium?
I don't think so. Since helium is the element that is most affected by stellar nucleosynthesis, the agreement needs to be made with the lowest metallicity objects. Papers I've read dealing with the issue in this way find remarkable concordance with 4He. Where is the counterevidence? --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The point is that some papers give low estimates, and quote remarkably small errors which disagree with the concordance BBN value. The point is that these errors are statistical errors from measuring helium-4 abundance in different HII regions, and take no account of the systematic effects, which are estimated to be an order of magnitude or more larger. I agree that nobody is worried about it, particularly in comparison to lithium-7, but I included it for completeness. –Joke137 18:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the article as it currently stands will lend people the impression that measurements of helium-4 cannot be made to be concordant with BBN when there are measurements that are considered by most in the field to be concordant. Joshuaschroeder 14:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The ignorance of Joshua and Joke according to Eric Lerner
If anyone looks at this discussion or the history page, it is clear that the problem is two individuals, Joshua and Joke, who do not actually know much about this subject, (although pretending to know a lot) and who dominate the revisions by having unlimited spare time on their hands. I have reverted to the scientifically correct version of this article. I suggest that, as Jossi says, we impose the “wisdom of crowds” and that anyone who respects scientific integrity just revert this article to my last reversion whenever they have time.Elerner 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh oh, there goes my credibility meter again. A quick review of the history page confirms the problem can't be "two individuals" because they have less active supporters like Pjacobi. Art LaPella 20:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Be warned that consistently coming to Wikipedia simply to revert without cause is considered edit warring and can result in blocking. --Joshuaschroeder 19:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, good reason for blocking you Joshua, since your last six edits have been reverts. I'll try to get that accomplished. Thanks for the tipElerner 00:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing?
The scientific community has for the most part accepted the big bang theory. It might be wrong but you will never gain any ground by editing an online encyclopedia in order to introduce alternate theories. An analogy would be the special theory of relativity in 1905. Einstein did not petition (or harass) the Encyclopedia Britannica to support his theory and qualify the articles on Newtonian mechanics. He published relativity and waited for the scientific community to embrace it based on experimental evidence and his theoretical arguments. Whatever motivates one to use an open source encyclopedia to push a new theory -- convenience, impatience, or desperation -- these efforts will fail. JHG 08:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

stop
I have decided to stop editing for the time being. Basically, I'm tired of arguing on the internet, and feel like there are more productive outlets for my energy. Have fun, and I hope you manage to resolve this mess. –Joke137 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

different interpretation of the theory
To at least attempt some comprehension about a different interpretation of the 'big bang' theory, see first the contri-bution which describes the origins of the African 'Kwaanza' holiday, and those which describe a mucousal oracle bead chronicle.

Among all the historical memory-perfect images preserved within the tiny oracle bead artifact which can be viewed, some show ancient volcano eruptions. Various 'big bang' theories which must be intellectually attempted include introspection about the causes of each ancient volcano, as augmented with the aural effects of the tiny voice strip also struck within the mucousal bead chronicle. The visual imagery is memory-perfect --  meaning that it includes information showing both organic genotypes and phenotypes, and inorganic chemical compositions viewable as the contents of the oracle bead.

In other words, the tiny oracle bead seems to talk and emit other significant sounds as a consequence of its included voice strip --  including 'big bang' effects. 11/25/2005 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)  beadtot


 * Googling musousal oracle bead chronicle leads to many gems. Thanks for the laugh. --JPotter 22:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)