Talk:Big Bang/Archive 2

message: Was: Removal of POV "scientific" Reference
I want the word "scientific" stricken from the preamble of the big bang entry. This hypothesis is not scientific in origin or in defense. Numerous examples have already been cited where big bang has been flatly falsified. Time and time again its predictions fall drastically short of reality. And then there is the fact that this hypothesis is based on the genesis myth, not on observation. I want this word out of the preamble for this entry as it is completely unjustified. - Plautus satire 15:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you are unprepared to defend the "scientific" nature of the big bang creation story? - Plautus satire 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: This is a good point, but I think you are broadening the term "scientific" a bit too much. The logical outcome of this pursuit would be that any idea about anything real is accurately described as "scientific," regardless of how disjoint from reality that idea is or is not. By this reasoning, the creation stories from the christian and other bibles are all "scientific theories". - Plautus satire 15:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: And that's the whole point of this thread, there is no evidence for big bang, it is falsified over and over again, and instead of being abandoned it is continually modified to its present state where even random nonsense data yields the same "solution" as actual observations. Eighty-five percent of the time, big bang make the same predictions based on garbage data as it does from actual observations, and this is because of the uncountable "corrections" and "modifications" to make the story fit every new observation. Although predictions is misleading, because really they are postdictions, since these "predictions" occur only as a result of innumerable "exceptions" where no rule can be demonstrated. If that's not the death knell for this myth I don't know what is. I apologize if my cavalier use of the word "myth" upsets big bang believers, that is not my intention. - Plautus satire 15:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I've tried doing things like this, and every time the passages are colored with definitely POV comments like "fringe scientists guess that" or "conspiracy theorists make wild claims that", etcetera, and these changes are all allowed to stand and defended on flimsy (demonstrably false?) "NPOV" grounds. I feel there is no way to insert this very relevant criticism of big bang by adding material to this page. I do, however, object to this use of this phrase "scientific theory" to describe something that is demonstrably falsified. And I'm more than willing to discuss here or anywhere all of the multiple lines of hard evidence that falsify big bang. - Plautus satire 16:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The hardest part is being patient. - Plautus satire 16:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can proponents of standard and non-standard models work together? 

message: I'd like to just point out again that this page has been protected for a couple of hours now, and it's been clearly demonstrated that, while not hastily protected, it was protected without basis. The argument is clearly and succinctly made that this page be unprotected. - Plautus satire 21:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Page unproteced. Plautus, please avoid "reversion wars" with Curps and Silsor. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this thoughtful advice, Ed Poor. And very good advice it is. I'll endeavor to be the "bigger man" and walk away in the future. - Plautus satire 15:27, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protected One (1) Hour After "edit war" Ended, Yet Still Protected 

message: "When these people measure the distance between two points that are sufficiently far apart, the distance will seem to be increasing, because the yardsticks they use to measure with are shrinking along with everything else."
I don't get it.  This makes less sense to me than the idea that stars are moving apart from each other.  So the atoms and subatomic particles are expanding in size, too?  Then the space that EM waves were moving through would be expanding at the same rate, too?  So how could we measure this expansion?  Doesn't seem like we could...  I think we need an article on the expansion of the universe. 
And the nature of the universe... Infinite, finite, wraps around on itself, how we would measure each of these, why we think the universe is one way or the other...  I am sure there is some information on WP about these things already, but perhaps we should create a separate article out of it? - Omegatron 18:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm no expert, but I found that "shrinking" idea useful when I was trying to understand all this stuff a while ago, so I thought I would add it to Wikipedia.  I found it hard to grasp the notion that it is space itself that is expanding, not a case of, as you say "stars moving apart from each other".  The point is that to say "the universe is expanding" is logically equivalent to saying "the universe is staying the same size but everything in it is shrinking", which, for me, was an easier thing to visualise.  You asked "the atoms and subatomic particles are expanding in size, too?", and the answer is no, they stay the same size.   I found it a hard thing to get my head round, but well worth it.  I think your suggestion of an expansion of the universe article is a very good idea, but, as I say, I'm no expert.  I've read some stuff, but I've not formally studied cosmology or anything, so I'm a bit reluctant to start it myself.   GrahamN 01:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding universe 

message: I'm not too happy with the phrase 'The details of how the process of galaxy formation occurred depends on the type of matter in the universe, and the three competing pictures of how this occurred are known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter'. Can it be reworded? The types of matter are not the competing pictures surely, merely elements that contribute to the models of galaxy formation? EddEdmondson 14:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview section - reword? 

message: Quote: "The Big Freeze is also known as the heat death of the universe."
from  it would appear that the two are in fact different theories, albeit with similar consequences - as I understand it:
heat death happens in a flat universe and is a result of entropy
the Big Freeze happens in an open universe and is a result of the universe expanding 
To clarify a bit, I think that "heat death" is the term used to describe what in this article is titled "Balance" --Jomel 14:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Freeze vs. heat death