Template talk:Physical cosmology

message: As you certainly have noticed, I have revised the template somewhat.  My remaining concern is the presense of Redshift.  This is not a purely cosmological phenomenon, and so I think that it should be either 
# removed or 
# a "Redshift (cosmological)" or "Cosmological Redshift" page created and that refered to instead.
(I notice that cosmological redshift currently redirects to Hubble's Law, but that can easily be overridden.) --EMS | Talk 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redshift 

message: Please see Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology. JamesAgain 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly an explanation. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i realise im a year late but alternate theories are valid, the big bang theory is far from complete and as such QSS is the current alternate theory to it. it is both a valid theory and an alternative to the big bang theory!Xbehave 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring Quasi-steady state 

message: There was no matter in the universe during the time of the Big Bang. They say that time itself was created after the Big Band but where was the space in which the Big Bang occured. It must have been complete white space or another dimension so it leaves us with one question: How old is the universe? It must been very old that time can't recall so theorically the Big Bang theory is true but it also means that the creation of the universe had helping hands: GOD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.192.138 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the flying spaghetti monster started everything. He told me in my dreams. 218.101.74.81 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  none of the above it was in fact me, i used a quantum entangled particle to go back in time create the universe then order me a pizza, some however would just put it down to my telekinesis or FSM interventions that made me think it was me?Xbehave 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang Theory? 

message: I'm seeing {{#if:Einstein· Hawking. Friedman· Lemaître· Hubble· Penzias· Wilson· Gamow· Dicke· Zel'dovich· Mather· Smoot| at the top of this template, and every page it's on. I'm running Firefox 1.5.0.12 on CentOS. I don't see it from before the moves and redirects, but I do afterwards. Just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. --Falcorian (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was caused by an edit made to . I've reverted the edit, and the problem should now have gone away. Mike Peel 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, it's gone now. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd template residue 

message: FYI, the hidden text (that which you reveal by clicking "show") is doesn't display correctly for me. Or, at least, it's harder to read than the other text which appears to be approximately the same size. I'm using Firefox 2.0 and my display is set to 1280 by 1024. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks GentlemanGhost, I checked it with Firefox 2.0 and I see what you mean. I'll have to investigate if this is due to improper line-height handling of firefox or a bug in the template. With epiphany I have no problems though it uses the Firefox engine. {Sheliak (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to read 

message: Is there a reason why the template lists it as CoBE yet links to COBE? The COBE article also has no instances of CoBE -- MacAddct  1984 (talk •  contribs) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoBE vs. COBE 

message: 
{paganame-1}
 
should be replaced by 


70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . It is , though. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is categorizing incorrectly 

message: Please revert to revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Physical_cosmology&oldid=370505126 since both images inlcuded since then are copyright violations queued for deletion (:commons:File:Cmbr2010.gif, :commons:File:PLANCK FSM 03 Black.jpg). --87.79.48.243 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks.   Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: edit request

message: Under Scientists there is a name Friedman and under Expanding Universe there are the Friedmann Equations.  Do they intend to refer to the same person?  The signature under the picture in the Friedmann Equations article doesn't seem to end in 2 ns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.217.68 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman or Friedmann? 

message: I would propose that dark fluid and dark flow be removed from the categories. While dark matter and dark energy are widely believed and discussed by hundreds of papers, the dark fluid is a somewhat speculative theory that has not been worked out in much detail. Dark flow is an observation by a single group which has been substantially disputed. Per WP:NOR and WP:Due_weight, I suggest dark fluid and flow should be removed as overly speculative. They deserve articles, but not a link in the main Physical Cosmology template. Wjs64 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tercer (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark fluid / dark flow - suggested removal 

message: I want to edit this template as i have a book in my hand having something ore about it
49.201.143.20 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell us the details of the content you want to add or change and the title and info about the book. Without specifics, we cannot make an edit for you. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 February 2013 

message: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/03/planckcmblarge.jpg
moew updated picture of cosmic background radiation for the universe
76.78.115.67 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The image you suggest is not freely licensed (see ESA's Terms and conditions) and as a decorative image for this navbox, fair use would not apply. Also, as a decoration, the current CMB image serves its purpose and doesn't necessarily need to be up-to-date to do so. — Bility (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 24 April 2013 

message: I created a new portal. It is about Cosmology: Portal:Cosmology
I tried but I can't add it to the bottom of the page right under the "Astronomy Portal". I hope you can give me a hand. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Tetra quark (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to add a new portal to the bottom of the template - HELP 

message: Change "Friedman" to "Friedmann" (missing an n). 2001:8003:6801:F200:ADAD:2159:9D0:D273 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Aasim 06:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020 

message: Change the Isaac Newton coat of arms from a obvious fake vector image to an image of the one on that was set in stone at the Woolsthorpe Manor, a much more creditable source 216.100.89.25 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021 

message: Can Hawking be added to the list of scientists?  Seems odd he's not already there, as he's probably the most famous cosmologist of the latter 20th century 208.85.77.1 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Stephen Hawking to "Scientists"? 

message: Can Kepler be added? IMO he’s kinda in the same league as Copernicus and quite likely better known than some of the other names in there. Frankly, I was a little surprised not to see him there first time I opened the list. Abel (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Kepler to the Scientists? 

message: I'm not super knowledgeable on modern physical cosmology, but is Somnath Bharadwaj really notable enough to warrant inclusion in this template? PianoDan (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: From what we have in his article, I would say probably not. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tercer (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somnath Bharadwaj 

message: Illustris project is an on-going effort to create cosmological simulation suites of unprecedented size and accuracy to study galactic evolution on cosmological scales. While simulations can be certainly referred to as "experiments", it's really out-of-place next to all the sky surveys listed in this section. Additionally, there are other, scientifically relevant simulation suites too, like the Millennium Run, CAMELS or FIREBox just to mention a few. I don't see any reason why cherry-pick Illustris here.
Very recently I started to work on a separate Template:Computational cosmology, a branch of physical cosmology to collect the currently completely unorganized and missing, but important and related subjects. Besides other things, I intend to collect relevant cosmological simulation suites there in a dedicated list, making it unnecessary to keep Illustris here.
I'm also working on the Computational cosmology article, which we could reference here once I publish it.
-- Masterdesky (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tercer (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Illustris project from "Experiments"