Talk:List of unsolved problems in astronomy

Creation of this list
See Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics for the background about this article. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hubble Tension
Should the Hubble Tension problem be included in this list? (Hmoulding (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC))
 * Cosmology at at Crossroads: Tension with the Hubble Constant
 * Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics?

WoW signal
I still oppose the Wow signal unless properly classified as one instance phenomenon, we don't want unsolved problem articles linking to the Oh-My-God particle nor the Bloop --MaoGo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Oh-My-God particle is also linked. Again, these two are unsolved problems but not of the same kind as the others.--MaoGo (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In reading the Oh-My-God particle article, that seems not to be a "one instance" phenomenon. Note, in the discussion of unsolved problems in physics (which led to the creation of this list for astronomy), some interest was expressed in including "unexplained" observations. Depending on what they are, unexplained observations, even one instance observations, might be deemed of sufficient interest to appear on a list such as this one. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think one-off events should be included, as long as they are properly marked as such (originally, I had set aside a section for them, but the Oh-My-God particle fit better as an example of a class). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What about the axis of evil
The Axis of evil (cosmology) appears in an entry of the list of unsolved problems in physics, for consistency, should we (1) remove the entry from the physics list and move it to this list (2) copy the entry here (3) remove it entirely? MaoGo (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally think it's OK to have items duplicated between these lists when it's clear that the question has been approached from both directions, so I lean a bit towards option (2). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Criterion for inclusion
What's the criteria, notability + a reliable secondary source saying it's a significant or major problem or paradox? I don't see that M-sigma relation makes a list like this. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Universe is Not Infinite (Explaination Why)
The Universe isnt Infinite because an Infinite Object with Infinite Size Cannot Expand by Knowing that the universe is expanding The Universe cannot be Infinite as an Infinite Object Cannot Expand as its already Expanded Infinitely Because of This Infinite objects cannot Expand

So techinically the Universe is finite but you cannot reach the edges Due to It expanding faster then light and even If you exceeded that you'll likely time travel back in time or forward

But there is an outside but we cannot reach It as the universe is expanding too fast for us to escape it

The true size of the universe is constantly changing due to the Expansion its not Fixed but constantly changing Kabecinha11 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Can infinite universe expand?
we dont know If the universe is flat thus It shouldnt be possible to expand also Infinite objects cannot Expand Also The Only Way an Infinite Object could Expand was If its surroding space is Infinite but that wouldnt make the object Infinite but finite in someway If the universe is flat It couldnt be Infinite because that would be impossible as the space outside of the universe would need to be Infinite so It could Expand but that wouldnt make the universe Infinite but finite Kabecinha11 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have any reference showing that infinite objects cannot expand we can remove that question. Imagine that you have an infinite surface and you sprinkle some of glitter on it, if the surface starts to expand the distance between any two glitter particles on the surface increases, so in the end you have less glitter per unit surface.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * does this count as a reference
 * https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/is-the-universe-infinite#:~:text=The%20observable%20universe%20is%20still,13.8%20billion%20years%20to%20travel. Kabecinha11 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * this wouldnt work because since the universe would be Infinite It would already be covering everything so It cannot Expand further trying to expand futher wont really work because It will either do nothing or slightly implode also If the universe was Infinite It would be infitely old and If the universe was Infinite It would become or be a Black hole because Infinite mass = Black hole or It would implode into a blackhole If a object already covers everything the object and tries to expand It wont Expand but implode If the universe was expanding then It wouldnt be expanding but imploding and we would have seen that secondly everything would be observable due to implosion If the universe was flat It would already been covering everywhere If It tries expanding It wont do anything or Just implode slightly not expanding Kabecinha11 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not count as a reference because (1) it is talking about the observable universe which is by definition finite, not to be confused with the whole universe (2) you are arguing by intuition, but infinity can be quite non-intuitive as a concept. Current models that consider the universe as infinite do not hsve any problem with its expansion. Even if it is not infinite, this has not been demonstrated so it is still a sensible question.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * good point Kabecinha11 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

SCP 06f6
I figured this would be appropriate to add in but I'm unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia. 220.244.118.21 (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)