Talk:Big Bang/Archive 13

message: :Since similar opinions keep coming up, does anyone think it would help to repeat the sentence "Please note, this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally" in red so people will notice? Art LaPella 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest modifying the note to make reference to WP:OR, and say something along the lines of "this is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began - it's to discuss the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about evidence for it and criticism of it that have been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature". Or maybe "This talk page is for discussing the article, which is about X. This talk page is not the place for Y or Z". --Christopher Thomas 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Doing so would greatly reduce trolling and flaming, and the endless, pointless arguments that ensue, which provide neither quality nor useable content to the article itself.  After all, while it is the freedom of any thinking people to debate an idea, it is up to scientists - and more specifically, astrophysicists and cosmologists - to establish the state of the BB model at any given time.  Since this article's existence is solely for the purpose of reporting that state and how it was concluded, discussions on origins would best be posted in Talk:Origins and not here. Astrobayes 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I changed it. I don't think changing "Talkheader" is an option without changing it for anyone, but how do you like it this way? Art LaPella 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. --Christopher Thomas 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page header 

message: Could some one elaborate on the fact that the Big Bang say that it has one of it's principle: space condensing? Has anyone ever anywhere condensed space? 134.193.168.234 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. If space condensing means cosmic inflation, I would think that's the opposite of condensing space. If it means condensing the article space alloted to non-standard cosmology, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condense space? 

message: Hubble telescope proved what it was intended for -- to verify the expansion of galaxies.  The ground observation of Edwin Hubble that lead to the theory of expanding universes created  the surmise that this motion must be explained by a central explosion of material outward -- thus galaxies seen as moving away from one another.  But the space telescope that bears the astronomers name verified the wrong fact, inconveniently for those who have now sworn their allegiance, without sufficient scientific data to the origin of that motion aka the big bang theory, which remains a quaint theory of a bygone innocent age of simplistic physics, a day that no longer approximates anything we have learned about the worlds and energies that make up our existence (unless we include pure mathmatical theory)
The rate of acceleration of those moving galaxies does not match the explosion theory.  Quite the opposite.  But this is only one observational confrontation with the dearest theory of them all.  
Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize for Physics, observed, "The basic assumption of the medieval cosmos - a universe created from nothing, doomed to final destruction, governed by perfect mathematical laws that can be found by reason alone - are now the assumptions of modern cosmology."
Neutral point of view?  If you are going to discuss Big Bang, then it should be shown why it isn't so.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
67.101.52.69 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to refute the Big Bang, please see the second information box at the top of this page. If you don't think this article achieves neutrality, please address many earlier debates including #Opposing views. Art LaPella 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang theory decried by rate of acceleration mismatch 

message: One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place
We live in a universe where nothing is the same today as it was yesterday - how the Big Bang is to be given the credit for this, escapes me totally. Perhaps the person who framed this sentence, would be kind enough to explain what is meant?  Paul venter 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some universe models you can imagine don't have an evolving universe. Others do. We aren't talking about arrows of time, but rather the fact that the density, temperature, etc. of the universe have been changing. --ScienceApologist 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apropos of nothing at all 

message: When you click on the timeline of the big bang text, you see a fairly informative timeline regarding the evolution of the universe. But displayed on the Big Bang page is a thumbnail that makes considerably less sense - sort of a box with differently colored geometric shapes in it. It isn't labeled as anything, and I feel I have at least a basic understanding of big bang cosmology and I have no idea what it is supposed to be. Could this picture be changed, removed, or supported with a little more explanation? (excuse me if I missed an explanation in the text somewhere)--AaronM 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Icon? 

message: The Wikipedia:The perfect article page says that "a perfect Wikipedia article ... is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." __ I can see that the BigBang theory is indeed a complex one, but this too, here, is an encyclopedia article and not a specialised one. In my openion, it certainly needs to become a lot more self-contained by means of simplification and abstracting the information, and providing clues as to the many technical terminology in it, such as providing a short and comprehensible meanings of them between brackets, for example. The importance of doing this lies in that only then the article may be readable for a non-specialised reader; currently it is quite very difficult and dense, as if it is an article of a specialised journal or magazine, not that of an encyclopedia (it is probably for that very reason that Wikipedia's "The perfect article" page acknowledges that principle stated above). Yet, the very valuable contributions of editors in this article will not be compromised or erased for that purpose; I think they should then be moved into a more specialised pages, sub-pages, etc. which are from the beginning concerned with technical and specialised information and are therefore justified in presenting these information in a technical and specialised manner and language (a good example, from within the Big Bang article, is the sub-page Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory). The Big Bang theory itself could have two distinct articles, one more abstract and simple, for the non-specialised reader (more self-contained), another, perhaps under a different title, more specialised and technical, and you know what to do with it!
Thank you, :-) __Maysara 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metric expansion of space is a start. --ScienceApologist 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is ''not'' enough self-contained  

message: There should be a section within this article present about the opponents to the Big Bang theory if one of proponents is.
:Here we go again. Opposition is at Big Bang#Features, issues and problems and its 7 subheadings. Art LaPella 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponents? 

message: In the main/history section there needs to be a source cited for this selection, " Because the net energy of the Universe is zero (as the positive energy of matter in the Universe mc2 is equilibrated by the same amount of negative energy of mutual gravitation of this matter), currently no "primeval atom" is considered to be necessary to start the Big Bang," because quite simply it sounds like pseudoscientific jargon and - I'm speaking as a physicist here myself - it means nothing as it is currently written.  If the author wishes to cite the source where this information was obtained that would help.  It deserves to be removed otherwise as it does not add substance to the article. Astrobayes 10:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a poor phrasing of the idea that it's a lot easier to make spontaneous creation of the universe consistent with known physical laws if it has exactly the mass needed for closure. This has been expressed in popular literature (Scientific American) as meaning that the gravitational potential energy (negative) exactly balances the mass energy (positive), giving a net energy of zero. --Christopher Thomas 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case, a short statement mentioning the idea and why it breaks down might be a good thing to put in the article. --Christopher Thomas 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is only common in (relatively) obscure popular science articles and books. Your average, everyday reader will have never come across this "misconception". In any case, I think the best place to address the issue would be on the conservation of energy page where the question "Does the Big Bang violate the conservation of energy?" might be more easily answered in context. Once we address it over there, linking from here can be done rather painlessly. What do others think? --ScienceApologist 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a citation 

message: A few questions on the Big Bang: From where did the material come to produce the big bang? For how many eons did it exist in a pre-big bang state? What triggered the big bang? Was the big bang from a mathematical point in space or another dimension? Was the big bang actually a change in a limited volume of pre-space and if so, what was the size of that volume? Is it possible that the so-called expansion of the universe is just a local effect in a closed, fixed size universe where another section is shrinking in response to the local expansion, and, if so, then doesn't that indicate that the Big Bang may have never happened?  Is it possible to resolve this dichotomy?Bvcrist 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know. Or as the article puts it, "the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony)." Art LaPella 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang vs Local Expansion-Remote Contraction