Talk:Models of the universe

AUTHORS RESPONSE to "request to delete" article: When I submitted the article UNIVERSE MODELS the purpose was to provide a useful, simplified, classification system: Historical, Expansion, and Cellular. With the 3 tables provided, a wide variety of models can be quickly and easily compared. To the extent that the article succeeds in this task, I would discourage its removal.

I have removed the last sub-section "Unification and Evolution of World Views" since some readers might consider it more opinion than factual. Unfortunately, with this deletion, the article has lost the full impact of the climactic ending. Also, the opening statement was changed accordingly.

With respect to the sensitive issue of original research: Pointing out that the Universe and everything in it is cellularly structured is merely drawing attention to what is rather obvious; and should not be considered original research. All the points in the article are factual and verifiable. Keep in mind that the article is a summary and necessarily lacks supporting detail for all the models. (Links will be added for the various models in due course.)

Since the containment principle is of crucial importance in understanding the validity of universe models (and does not have a definition in Wikipedia), I have added a reference source.

If there are any further issues and objections to the revised version of UNIVERSE MODELS please let me know; and I will address them.

Kind regards, (Ranzan 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

P.S. Philosophy!!?? —Physical Cosmology has always been a branch of physics.


 * Rofl - why do you think people study philosophy? Anything can be thought about at a higher-level. So, we get to carry out research on just about anything we find interesting! And, yes, your deletion was sensible and I hope it will hopefully save the article, because the collection of material here looks interesting and is reasonably well presented. The smartest things for you to do if you want to preserve it are create clear references to reliable sources for all the claims on the page, and link it into other articles. I have added phil categories, and cosmology. You might want to add something else that relates to physics.

A MORE ACCURATE CATEGORIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE MODELS PAGE: All the models described in this article were designed by their respective cosmologists to deal with what is observable, what is detectable, what is measurable —in other words, what is physically real. And to make sense of the measurable phenomena the models (through the craftsmanship of the model-makers) employed the most advanced physics that was available at the time they were being expounded. The designers may have had philosophical motivations but their constructions are primarily physical. Physical laws were the tempered-and-rigid primary tools the designers used, leaving the more flexible implements of philosophy for those concerned with the ethereal world of the emotions, the spiritual, the meaning of life and the meaning of existence itself.

In the discussion of cosmology classification and of specific models, the arguments used are physical ones  —not philosophical. For instance, it is the enormous difficulty with which the Big Bang model struggles to comply with physical laws that has doomed it. Witness its proponents' desperate fabrication of new physics —things like new forms of matter (dark matter), extra dimensions (strings), and evolving (time varying) physical laws. And in contrast, as the article points out, it is the remarkable compliance to physical rules that makes the true cellular model stand out.

Yes, there are philosophical models of the universe. Almost every religion has one. But they do not appear, nor do they belong, in this article on physical cosmology. Admittedly, a clear demarcation is not a simple matter. The Brahmanda entry (Tables 1 & 2) is somewhat in a twilight zone. It is also possible to argue that BB cosmology, following the Pope's endorsement of it in 1953, has gradually become a religion in its own right. Corey S. Powell makes this argument in his book God in the Equation.

In conclusion, this article (Universe Models) should be classified firstly under Physical cosmology, secondly History of Science, and thirdly Philosophy of Physics.

(Ranzan 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

This subject already covered at Wikipedia
I have redirected this article to physical cosmology as the subject is already covered there. I encourage anyone who is willing to merge non-repetitive content there to do so, however, much of this page is judged to be original research and unwarranted promotion of non-standard cosmologies in strict violation of undue weight. ScienceApologist 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This was just a ton of WP:OR copypasted from a web essay. I was trying to salvage it, but about halfway through changed my mind, and I fully endorse the stubification. 1of3 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Author's Response to the request for deletion (or merger)
Sorry for the delay in responding.

1) The primary purpose of the Wikipedia article "Universe Models" was (and should remain) a concise presentation of a wide spectrum of cosmology models that are organized into some simple and logical classification scheme. The classification scheme embodied in the three Tables (the Historical-, Expanding-, and Cellular-Models) achieved this purpose more than adequately. A fourth table, called "Unclassified Models" was planned to join the other three. It is currently being prepared and will accommodate the inevitable miscellaneous models (for instance, the Plasma Universe) that are otherwise difficult to classify but should be included. 2)  The "Universe Models" article facilitated quick comparisons and assessments of models and their key features. It provided a time saving summary for students of physics, cosmology, and philosophy.

3) By moving the contents of the "Universe Models" article to the Physical Cosmology page the latter would become too lengthy! Realize that the subject of physical cosmology is so vast that publishers have printed entire Encyclopedias devoted solely to the topic.

4) Most of the commentary in the original article dealt in one way or another with various aspects of the classification scheme. When the text draws attention to the rather obvious flaws of the various models it is done so in connection with some characteristic of its classification. For example, if a universe is theorized to be expanding AND infinite then there are difficulties in such a claim; and for classification purposes if it is classed as an expanding model then the infinite portion of the subclassification becomes doubtful. The expanding universe models are embarrassingly full of logical inconsistencies. The gravity paradox researched by David Layzer and described in the article is one of the most blatant. If the majority of experts in the field choose to ignore this unresolved paradox (unresolved in the context of Big Bang cosmology) then it does not make it any less factual. More to the point, the gravity paradox relates directly to the classification ---it affects all the Table 2 models.

5) I understand and appreciate the no original research rule. I thought the issue was settled through the discussion that took place shortly after the article was posted. ... The Dynamic Steady State Universe theory which describes a functional cellular universe was original research back in the year 2002 when it was presented at the ESO International Astrophysics Symposium (in Munich, 2002) on Astronomy, Cosmology, and Fundamental Physics. (The so called Munich Symposium is one of the two most prestigious in the world; the other is known as the Texas Symposium.) A summary of the model is published in the symposium proceedings and also appears on the Harvard University website. The existence of this cellular universe model is now old news. It entered the record in 2002 ---that's five years ago. For how many years does original research continue to be classified as "original research" and banned from Wikipedia?

6) I do not understand the applicability of the "soapbox" comment. How can stating facts in their appropriate context be considered as opinionating from a soapbox? (Conclusions are not opinions when drawn from fairly balancing the facts.)

7) If focusing on and interpreting truth boils down to "a conflict of interest" as suggested in the "recommendation for article deletion" then there is truly nothing to be done. If that is actually the case, then I must confess, I should not be a Wikipedia contributor.

8) Needless to say, it is discouraging to have one's article removed before it has even been completed.

9) I would strongly urge those concerned to reconsider the status of the "Universe Models" article; recognize the article's particular usefulness and restore it as an independent page serving as a classification summary with classification commentary.

The main point is that the "Universe Models" article/page should serve as a summary article and focus on classification characteristics and methods.

Responses would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ranzan 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I encourage the user to see what a number of editors did with his contributions at cosmology (not physical cosmology as the editor stated). The table was kept there, but much of the text was determined to be basically problematic. The text made some grandiose claims about cellular models of the universe which are basically unrecognized in the peer-reviewed articles. Wikipedia is simply a mainstream encyclopedia and all encyclopedia content should be a summary of current thinking in the relevant academic community (this one being the physical cosmology community). While fringe suggestions are not excluded from Wikipedia as a general rule, they cannot be presented in general summative articles such as the title of this particular article suggests. The singular opinions of scientists, no matter how pre-eminent, are not for Wikipedia. As far as original research is concerned, the best place to ask questions is either there or at Village pump. ScienceApologist 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know the extent of your knowledge in cosmology/astrophysics but the text that you find "problematic" is entirely factual.
 * What is truly problematic is the fact that mainstream cosmology is missing a causal mechanism (an explanation) for gravitation. Newton by his own admission gave no cause for his gravitational force and Einstein by his own admission gave no cause for the ability of mass to 'curve' space in producing the gravitational effect. Mainstream theorists are painfully aware of this fundamental deficiency (not my opinion) ---witness the relentless search, now many decades long, for gravity waves and gravity particles. Either of these is said to hold the promise of a causal mechanism. Search results? Negative.
 * The current thinking in cosmology is so untenable and in such disarray that over 400 scientists and researchers have effectively revolted and signed a devastating Declaration of opposition to Big Bang cosmology ---see CosmologyStatement.


 * Your statement about the grandiose claims attributed to the cellular model is totally accurate. As explained in the text it solves the David Layzer gravity paradox. It also solves the problem of the causal mechanism; but this is another story and is not covered in the present text.


 * Your concern over problematic text and ideas is misplaced. (My opinion.)


 * My main point stands: The main purpose of the "Universe Models" article/page should be to serve as a summary article with a focus on classification characteristics and methods. Placing all the models in one table (as I see has now been done) defeats entirely the original purpose. With this clearly defined purpose the original article is more than a mere description ---it becomes a highly useful tool allowing readers to make critical comparisons and validity judgments with respect to the various models and classes of models.


 * If you agree, please initiate a "deletion review."


 * In any case, thank you for the sincere response.


 * Regards, Ranzan 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. For better or worse, the "cosmology statement" is a document that is signed by nearly less than a half dozen physicists and astronomers who actually work in the field. There are so many pseudoscientists and charlatans who signed the statement that any kind of credibility the original authors were hoping for the open letter to generate has all but vanished.


 * I disagree with your attempt to make critical comparisons. What you are basically advocating is original research and therefore not allowed at this encyclopedia. Note that according to WP:FRINGE, even if there has been a single peer reviewed paper outlining the idea you want to see discussed at Wikipedia, that is not enough. WP:WEIGHT comes into play and, frankly, you've got an entire academic community to fight against. You are free to publish your ideas elsewhere, get critical acclaim, and then return here to get them described. Until then, I'm afraid you're going to have to live with the "standard model" discussions.


 * ScienceApologist 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)