Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology

message: Whoa! This article is a bit short eh? Do we even need it? Does it qualify for Wiktionary? 
Shanekorte 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Check out the difference .
You'll note that User:Reddi, subject to his ways, decides that cleaning up spelling, grammar, and syntax is not to be kept. I ask him to explain himself on the talkpage.
--Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup intro

message: While Reddi continues his campaign to rid Wikipedia of my edits, I will continue to ask him to explain his reasoning for changing my edits here. --Joshuaschroeder 18:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to NPOV intro

message: See, for example, Ned Wright's critique of Quasi-steady state which is fairly damaging. The advocates haven't been honest or forthright in their advocacy and we need to make sure the readers know this. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link? --James S. 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: link --ScienceApologist 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To which claims, in particular, do you refer? --James S. 16:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This claim has been removed. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a factual accuracy dispute, not an allegation of bias. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear from definitions that QSS includes and in not necessarily distinguisable from big bang cosmology; therefore any claims of big bang cosmology are attributable to QSS as well.  This is not, therefore, a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the critism offered by Ned Wright for why this doesn't work. QSS does not subsume Big Bang predictions -- they make different owns according to their own papers. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As above, QSS includes big bang cosmology, so this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced discussion is different than Big Bang nucleosynthesis, so this is valid. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a content accuracy questions, and seems to be supported.  Is there any evidence that it is not in the cited reference? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is bias claiming that it is a "viable choice". --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, since QSS includes big bang cosmology, this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to include a cite to back up your contention. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Citation by over 30 peer reviewed publications is not "absolutly limited" because the number of citations continue to grow (by the way, try Thompson's Science Citation Index for better coverage than the free web services.) --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 publications about qss's interpretation of the CMB? This is plain false. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Because QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology, there is no evidence to support this.  As above, it is simply an invalid dispute.  A content issue at best, but not bias my any stretch of the imagination. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you haven't shown that qss as developed by Hoyle et al. subsumes the Big Bang. It is biased to portray these statements in such a light. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously claiming that big bang is completely consistent and coherent.  There are large gaps in big bang cosmology, including issues of dark matter and general accuracy based on the limitations of instruments.  This is not bias, it is the plain fact. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Bang is completely consistent and coherent since it is a scientific theory. Dark matter isn't a "gap" and the advent of precision cosmology has made "instrument limitation" points a fallacy. It is definitely biased to state that the Big Bang has "proved inadequate". By whose reckoning? God's? --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Source? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try any of the extensions beyond the Big Bang including the cyclic universe. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: An alternative explanation is hardly bias.  This doesn't even qualify as an inaccuracy; it simply states what QSS adherents have stated.  That is the purpose of an encyclopedic article. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there is no problem with regards to old stellar populations. This is an inaccurate statement. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither bias nor an inaccuracy.  Are you so fundamentalist about the hegemony that any alternative hypotheses are to be bannished from the encyclopedia?  You might have a point if it were possible to distinguish this particular alternative from the hegemony you champion. This claim is pathetic. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as currently written seems to claim that the Big Bang doesn't have a model for dark matter. It does. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Occam's razor demands that QSS be preferred.  The only bias in evidence here is this claim's against QSS. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong about Ockham's razor as has been pointed out by numerous editors below. I'm sorry that you fail to see this, but it is a plain and simply fact. "True origin" implies taht QSS is closer than the Big Bang -- an obvious point of bias. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Entirely unconvincing. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks seem to evince an ignorance of cosmological subjects. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of this part of science, but don't impose your ignorance on the rest of the editors please. And do not continue to remove tags that can attract attention to this horrendous article. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased and factually incorrect

message: I have highlighted the points where I see the bias in this article:
The idea relied on the Machian theory of gravity first as a foundational element in the theory. -- this is not neutral point of view. There is no "Machian theory of gravity", there is only a postule of Mach's that extends the kinematic invariance of GR into dynamical invariance. It is controversial to claim that this is a theory of gravity or that it can really be "foundational" to anything more than idle speculation.
:This claim has been removed. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a factual accuracy dispute, not an allegation of bias. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear from definitions that QSS includes and in not necessarily distinguisable from big bang cosmology; therefore any claims of big bang cosmology are attributable to QSS as well.  This is not, therefore, a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the critism offered by Ned Wright for why this doesn't work. QSS does not subsume Big Bang predictions -- they make different owns according to their own papers. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As above, QSS includes big bang cosmology, so this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced discussion is different than Big Bang nucleosynthesis, so this is valid. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a content accuracy questions, and seems to be supported.  Is there any evidence that it is not in the cited reference? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is bias claiming that it is a "viable choice". --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, since QSS includes big bang cosmology, this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to include a cite to back up your contention. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Citation by over 30 peer reviewed publications is not "absolutly limited" because the number of citations continue to grow (by the way, try Thompson's Science Citation Index for better coverage than the free web services.) --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 publications about qss's interpretation of the CMB? This is plain false. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Because QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology, there is no evidence to support this.  As above, it is simply an invalid dispute.  A content issue at best, but not bias my any stretch of the imagination. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you haven't shown that qss as developed by Hoyle et al. subsumes the Big Bang. It is biased to portray these statements in such a light. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously claiming that big bang is completely consistent and coherent.  There are large gaps in big bang cosmology, including issues of dark matter and general accuracy based on the limitations of instruments.  This is not bias, it is the plain fact. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Bang is completely consistent and coherent since it is a scientific theory. Dark matter isn't a "gap" and the advent of precision cosmology has made "instrument limitation" points a fallacy. It is definitely biased to state that the Big Bang has "proved inadequate". By whose reckoning? God's? --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Source? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try any of the extensions beyond the Big Bang including the cyclic universe. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: An alternative explanation is hardly bias.  This doesn't even qualify as an inaccuracy; it simply states what QSS adherents have stated.  That is the purpose of an encyclopedic article. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there is no problem with regards to old stellar populations. This is an inaccurate statement. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither bias nor an inaccuracy.  Are you so fundamentalist about the hegemony that any alternative hypotheses are to be bannished from the encyclopedia?  You might have a point if it were possible to distinguish this particular alternative from the hegemony you champion. This claim is pathetic. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as currently written seems to claim that the Big Bang doesn't have a model for dark matter. It does. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Occam's razor demands that QSS be preferred.  The only bias in evidence here is this claim's against QSS. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong about Ockham's razor as has been pointed out by numerous editors below. I'm sorry that you fail to see this, but it is a plain and simply fact. "True origin" implies taht QSS is closer than the Big Bang -- an obvious point of bias. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Entirely unconvincing. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks seem to evince an ignorance of cosmological subjects. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of this part of science, but don't impose your ignorance on the rest of the editors please. And do not continue to remove tags that can attract attention to this horrendous article. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of bias

message: QSS cosmology is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology.  This is clear from first principles:  Consider two big bang-like creation events so distant that their light cones do not intersect.  Observers in either would, by definition, be unable to distinguish their local single creation event from the two in existence.
Because the confidence interval over the shape of space includes positive (hyperbolic, open), zero (flat, Euclidean, open), and negative (closed) curvatures, the possible existence of open topologies does not allow QSS to be ruled out.
Therefore, big bang cosmology is a special, N=1 case of quasi-steady state cosmology, and any attempt to claim that QSS is controversial is false on its face, because it includes the N=1 big bang case.  
There is no evidence that N<2. Therefore, QSS is a noncontroversial cosmology.  Because QSS includes big bang cosmology at N=1, therefore QSS is also a notable cosmology, and should be treated as such. --James S. 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that N>1, and therefore, by Occam's Razor, the simplest case of N=1 is preferred.  Any claim to the contrary, if provided without evidence, is controversial. --Carnildo 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occam's razor is on the contrary position, because a unique N=1 is a more complicated idea than the thought than simply N>0.  If an event happens exactly once, it requires an additional complicating reason that it is limited to one time only, because all other manifestations of physics allow multiple similar events to occur.  The fact that an event being limited to one unique instance only is more complicated means that Occam's razor supports QSS. --James S. 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, what you are describing isn't exactly a qss but may be closer to a multiverse or a m-brane hypothesis. --ScienceApologist 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiverse cosmology includes the "many worlds" of quantum physics, so I would agree with that if the Terrestrial Planet Finder hadn't just been abandoned.  I think QSS is more well defined.  I also think it has been more formally developed, as a cosmology in the large instead of a cosmology and a state machine to go along with it. However, I am inclined to agree. --James S. 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks are rather cryptic, I'm not sure what you think that the TPF has to do with any of this, but QSS as you are envisioning it is another version of different "domains" or "brane collisions" resulting in separate "big bangs" for different parts of the "total universe". This type of speculation of quantum cosmology is not part of the standard base of scientific inquiry and it certainly isn't qss as envisioned by Hoyle or Narlikar. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you serious?  "two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes [which] collide periodically in a higher dimensional space" has nothing to do with observers in one or more big bang creation events in the same open space.  If you have any actual reasons that the cyclic model is at all applicable to qss cosmology, then please state them. --James S. 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you think that the N=1 vs. N>0 argument is fatuous?  Do you think there is a way for observers within big bang and QSS cosmologies to distinguish between them? --James S. 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: QSSC is not "just the same" as a unitary big bang, it is similar, and the degree of similarity depends on the relative distance of creation event(s).  I don't think you are using the word "fatuous" according to its definition.  The light elements are only different to the degree that the creation events have had intersecting light cones, and even then, the extent that they would change nucleic abundance ratios is completely variable.  We do not know whether distant quasars are creation events from colapsed "big crunch" events, or something else. Saying that something is "in principle falsifiable" simply because it depends on something else which you assume is exactly N=1 true, even though you only have evidence that N>0, is wrong. --James S. 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big bang is special N=1 case of QSS 

message: Both the POV of the article (see above comments) and the factual accuracy (see above comments) is disputed. Please resolve the issues by modified the disputed prose listed two sections above. Do not remove the tag otherwise. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that there are any remaining POV issues; those listed above are simple content accuracy disputes, not allegations of bias.  I will continue to include a more user-friendly, explanatory tag.  It is sad when a reputable researcher's adherence to hegemony puts him the the unenviable position of arguing against simple logic, trying to claim that existing citations of definitions are insufficient for basic deductions from the facts they plainly state. --James S. 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly a dispute going on as we are having a discussion. Do not remove the tag again. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not remove the tag as you have failed to once again answer the criticisms here. --ScienceApologist 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What issues of bias (not fact) do you believe exist in the article as it is now? --James S. 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #Points of bias. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, you mixed in factual disputes with allegations of bias.  I responded to all of the allegations of bias, and there are none which you have since replied to.  Therefore I am removing the tag -- again.  If you put it back, please enumerate the remaining bias problems which you believe remain below. Even if any remain, I remind you that you have heavily edited the article, and your opinion of the worthlessness of the cosmology is quite apparent.  I am most interested in what you believe is so far opposed to your point of view that it renders the article biased. --James S. 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do your own redaction. Bias remains, and it is important that it is removed from the article. If you would like a specific example, I will provide it. --ScienceApologist 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please.  Also why did you remove, "QSS proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers' to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation."? --James S. 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tag

message: Really? The only Grigori Slepak I found on Google is a graduating senior in Florida. Art LaPella 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was trying to re-insert the cosmic iron whiskers paragraph, not the vandalism.  Fixed. --James S. 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "this is factual, verifiable, undisputed"

message: Can I suggest that the entire format be changed? I know it's a drastic suggestion, but this Wiki entry is an eyesore, it's but a bunch of cites. It reads like an appendix, not an introduction. This is suppose to educate readers of QSS, not bore them to death with just footnotes. :( FResearcher 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do, be aware that the sea of citations resulted from total edit war between mainstream scientists and minority opinions, and that each hotly disputed idea and sub-idea needed a citation. Any major change is likely to set off the war all over again, on this page and on other cosmology pages. Art LaPella 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Change 

message: This article has been merged to steady state theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.90.96 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge completed