Talk:Big Bang/Archive 8

message: JDR, please provide a list of specific, concrete changes you would like to see in the article for it to become, in your eyes, NPOV. I think I have provided good reasons why the changes you and Eric Lerner have made are unacceptable, but neither of you seems willing to engage on discussing the specifics of these edits. –Joke137 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. The one case I can think of is dark energy. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The low number of input parameters in ΛCDM; resulting in good fits of many observations is even a distinguished feature of the theory. Remarkably, trying to introduce more parameters doesn't give significantly better fits. --Pjacobi 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't editors be allowed to remove statements that are out-and-out false? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That is true. It is impossible to predict the actual temperature of the CMB without precise knowledge of the expansion history of the universe and the physics of decoupling. I don't see that as relevant – the successful prediction that it is thermal was clearly borne out. Should we, on the plasma cosmology page, maintain a litany of all the ongoing failures of plasma cosmology to predict anything? –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There prediction for the temperature of the CMB was dead on for the assumptions they made (which turned out to be measured to be incorrect). A detail history of the prediction of the temperature of the CMB is rightly included on the CMB page. What is important is that the CMB is a fundamental characteristic of the Big Bang theory that had to be postdicted by the steady-state proponents. That's why the CMB is important from a historical perspective. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see I'm not the only one who thinks this phrase is over the top.  Mr. Schroeder and I had a brief discussion on it earlier, but all he could provide was anecdotal evidence for it's support.  I still stick to my theory that dark matter is only necessary in cosmology(i.e., it's a hack).  Any belief in it outside of cosmology is most likely due to propaganda by cosmologists and the fact that scientists in other fields (i.e., everyone else) have no need for dark matter, hence no need to investigate it's authenticity.the1physicist 15:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Personal theories are not allowed in wikipedia: WP:NOR. Instead we need to have a discussion of how many papers which claim to contradict the existence of dark matter. In the last year I've been purusing astro-ph I've seen no more than ten for the hundreds which are about dark matter. So how can it be claimed that it isn't widely accepted? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This rests on the notability of the critics. There are a very small handful of critics and we mention that they exist in the article. Why can't this statement be placed on non-standard cosmology (where indeed it currently resides)? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We discussed the fact that the "early universe" has no context other than in the big bang. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See discussion of "observation" below in Eric Lerner's criticism section. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See discussion below. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See comments below and above. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would not object to reintroducing this to the links section, with a different caption. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Neither would I. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember this section. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Which ones in particular? –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: See the archived discussion. "The big bang is the scientific theory that": you missed an important word. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ???–Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The oscillating universe is still in. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You could respond directly to the points delineated above. Please do so or I submit that the tag should be removed for lack of evidence. Joshuaschroeder 17:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag