User talk:Ranzan

Universe Models
A template has been added to the article Universe Models, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. The Evil Spartan 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Just wondering: Why is the article classified under Philosophy!!?? —Physical Cosmology has always been a branch of Physics.

A MORE ACCURATE CATAGORIZATION 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 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Categorisation
I don't think the order of the categories matters at all. It just means that the article appears on a category page, so anyone interested in that catgeory can see at a glance what is and is not there and see articles that they may be interested in reading/working on. I think, from your comments that you have not done a lot of philosophy of science ir philosophy of physics (forgive me if I am wrong. Philosophers of physics, and analytic philosophers in general, are extremely unlikely to be interested in or work on 'twilight zone' material. Theoretical physics and philosophy of physics are closely related. In fact, theoretical physicists of certain kinds are, in effect, philosophers - even if they don't know it! Check out Harvey Brown's article for a few articles that are 'twilight zone' in the physics sense. (There are other more appropriate philosophy of physics pages around, but Harvey springs to my mind because I just created his page!) Anarchia 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have added change the order of the cats if you wish. Anarchia 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Universe models
There seem to be some serious problems with your article Universe Models. First, we already have a series of articles on cosmology, such as cosmology (an overview including religious, philosophical, and scientific approaches), physical cosmology, timeline of cosmology, and cosmogony. It's not at all clear that there is any need for a separate article called "Universe Models." I don't see anything in the article that wouldn't be better merged somewhere else. Second, it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, with a lot of discourse, opinion, and argumentation. Please see Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, particularly #3, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Third, there seems to be a conflict of interest in that the article promotes your own work. It might be possible for some of the material here to be merged into other articles, or to cut out the essay and create a simple list of cosmological models instead. I intend to submit it to articles for deletion, and of course, will notify you when I do so. --Reuben 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now listed here: Articles_for_deletion/Universe_Models. You're welcome to participate in the discussion.  --Reuben 22:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article!
Universe Models is a exellent article, users like you are needed on Wikipedia. Welcome! And by the way, a friendly advice, create yourself a user-page. If you need help, leave me a messege. And again, good work! And dont take those deletion nominations to hard. 4 of my articles were twice thru this nomination, and they still exist. M.V.E.i. 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Ranzan, Models of the universe will be OK with some modifications, but you should be aware that your article is now under siege by ScienceApologist, claiming usual main-stream arguments in spite of the outcome of the deletion-voting! -Kurtan 18:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The table has been merged with cosmology. The text is decidedly original research and is removed accordingly. You can talk about it here. ScienceApologist 21:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Author's Response to the Request for Deletion/Merger
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 made by one critic. 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 all 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 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

No original research
I was wondering whether you have had the chance to read the Wikipedia policy about No Original Research. I think if you take a look at that you will see why people are uncomfortable with essay text which can not be attributed to a source meeting the reliable source criteria. 1of3 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)