Talk:Big Bang/Archive 6

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Critical views" anon contribution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  big bang theroy should redirect here 

message: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A bit confused... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  introduction