Talk:Physical cosmology

message: Wouldn't it make sense to update the main image of the CMB? The current image is the older and lower resolution WMAP image. The newer image, released in 2013, is the more scientifically up-to-date image.  see below for NYT comparison: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/21/science/space/0321-universe.html?_r=0
Speedplane (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the main image of the CMB? 

message: J. V. Narlikar, Introduction to Cosmology, Jones and Bartlett 
Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA, 1983.(HCPotter (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other cosmologies reference 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/
*:Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Wondering what is the difference between 'Physical cosmology' and 'Cosmic evolution'? I am thinking 'physical cosmology' is the study of the material aspects of the cosmos (which includes our universe, and all other billions & billions of universes) and all the stuff in it -- matter, energy, and it might include the subject of 'cosmic evolution', that is, how all this material stuff evolved? Or, is 'cosmic evolution' a separate area of study?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Should this phrase be removed: "which are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations." First, it lacks attribution. Secondly, because dark matter and dark entities are hypothetical entities introduced specifically to explain such observations, of course they will agree with those observations. Thus, just as WP is designed to prevent circularity in its own editing (i.e., WP articles may not reference each other for attribution), so too, if there is any circularity here, it will undermine the value of this article. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have posted the same thing twice. (Saw you fixed that -- thanks!)  The "excellent agreement" sentence in the lead should be a summary of more extensive material in the body of the article.  As such, it wouldn't ordinarily need separate sourcing.  However, it might be appropriate to give an attribution in the lead given that the development of the body does seem to be lacking in some areas.  We could add a citation of a review article or standard reference such as the PDG.  Your second point is not really correct (there are many different observational tests, and in many cases successful predictions rather than just post hoc model-fitting); and it's also not relevant to the article without outside sourcing for the argument. --Amble (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

text: For some examples: dark matter is inferred from local observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters.  Dark energy is inferred from supernovae at z<2 or so.  When these are found to agree with cosmological data such as precision measurements of the CMB temperature power spectrum at z=1100, that agreement is far from trivial. --Amble (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I've added the PDG citation.  What do you think? --Amble (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Excellent agreement with observations" 

message: There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate.  SchreiberBike talk 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of capitalization of ''universe'' 

message: An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of request for comment 

message: Regarding this sentence:
: In the 1910s, Vesto Slipher (and later Carl Wilhelm Wirtz) interpreted the red shift of spiral nebulae as a Doppler shift that indicated they were receding from Earth.
I looked at a presentation by Slipher in 1917 and his conclusion then was as follows:
: "We may in a like manner determine our motion relative to the spiral nebulæ, when sufficient material becomes available. A preliminary solution of the material at present available indicates that we are moving in the direction of right-ascension 22 hours and declination −22° with a velocity of about 700 km."
That is, as of 1917 he had not reached the conclusion as stated above, but instead suggested the redshift was due to the general motion of the Milky Way relative to the other nebulæ. The true interpretation came later, but it's not clear that happened during the 1910s. Praemonitus (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed some more checking. This 1918 article appears to show that he was changing his views. By 1922 his findings showed that the velocities of the spiral nebulæ showed they were almost all moving away. I'm going to add the last as the reference. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The original statement from the article is slightly vague, depending on whether you take "spiral nebulae" to mean "some spiral nebulae, those which he had observed, primarily in one region of the sky", or "spiral nebulae as a general class".  The main thing to clearly state is that Slipher already measured redshifts and used them to find relative velocities, most of which were receding; too often all of this gets credited to Hubble along with his later work.  Looks like your new reference is a good addition. --Amble (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slipher's conclusion 

message: The only inline citations now are for a debunked observation and the new subsection on gravitational waves.  More are need in other paragraphs, especially for theoretical proposals and ideas. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to address this concern by adding many new references to the section. If there are still issues, inline tags can be used. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice work on improving the sourcing of this section. I concur that any remaining issues could be addressed with inline tags. --Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More cites needed in "Areas of Study" 

message: The main image caption says humanity is a red supernova, the internet is its core, and we live in the event horizon of a black hole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5601:8900:F061:21E7:222E:16D1 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, no. Praemonitus (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image caption needs to be rewritten 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: withdrawn, will reformulate. (non-admin closure)  Heanor (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: historically, cosmology began as a philosophical topic. The scientific study is a sub-topic of a broader theme. Praemonitus (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 January 2022 

message: Of all the sources listed here, only a single one mentions the term 'physical cosmology', and it disagrees with this page on what physical cosmology is. arxiv:0602280 , 
"Cosmology is the study of the large-scale structure of the Universe, where ‘the Universe’ means all that exists in a physical sense [104]. This is to be distinguished from the Observable Universe, namely that part of the Universe
containing matter accessible to our astronomical observations, which is a subset of the Universe proper. Thus cosmology considers the vast domain of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, quasi-stellar objects, etc., observable in the
sky by use of telescopes of all kinds, examining their nature, distribution, origins, and relation to their larger environment. Observational cosmology [114, 128, 99, 189, 18] aims to determine the large-scale geometry of the
observable universe and the distribution of matter in it from observations of radiation emitted by distant objects, while physical cosmology [163, 193, 233, 202, 171, 38] is the study of interactions during the expansion of the
universe in its early hot big bang phase, and astrophysical cosmology [193, 165, 160, 174, 38] studies the resulting later development of large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies. "
What's listed on this page covers what this source refers to as Observational cosmology, physical cosmology and astrophysical cosmology, not just physical cosmology. Why has this article been renamed from what it is actually referred to as almost unanimously, to physical cosmology which it is almost never referred to as? 2001:56A:F343:2700:54C0:7516:B1C4:A703 (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of this page is specifically focused on a branch of astronomy rather than metaphysics, so in the Wikipedia style it could alternatively be named Cosmology (astronomy) to distinguish it from Cosmology (metaphysics). Praemonitus (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cosmology (astronomy) would be better (since again, physical cosmology just is not what this field is called), though Cosmology (physics) would be better still since there are parts of cosmology that don't come under astronomy.  2001:56A:F343:2700:5DE7:8C70:11F5:1323 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Physics and astronomy are closely linked, but scientific cosmology is generally considered a field of astronomy (with elements of physics). I think Cosmology (physics) may be more confusing to people. Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't true, cosmology is not a field of astronomy. A lot of cosmology is part of astronomy, but not cosmology in general, there are parts of cosmology that are not astronomy. Cosmology (physics) would be the correct term. e.g. arXiv puts cosmology under the subheading physics, because cosmology is a subfield of physics. 2001:56A:F343:2700:5DE7:8C70:11F5:1323 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article naming in Wikipedia is about what people expect to find when they do a lookup. Most people expect to find cosmology covered under astronomy. This is why there is a WP:COMMONNAME. Praemonitus (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes this is why the article should be renamed to be what it is actually referred to, not the term it is called here which is not used. 2001:56A:F343:2700:5DE7:8C70:11F5:1323 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then we're at an impasse, because when I see "Cosmology (physics)" I immediately think "early Big Bang"; not the entire field of observational cosmology. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not really sure why you think that as that isn't what the term means. Again, for example you can look through cosmology in the physics section of arXiv for one example of many, the vast majority is not just about the early Big Bang. 2001:56A:F343:2700:5DE7:8C70:11F5:1323 (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Physical Cosmology'