Talk:Universe

message: Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Universe" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The NY times is definitely not a credible source for discounting the best understanding of physics we have. WP:ECREE standards absolutely apply (as you pointed out) and we don't need to include every "hint" from someone who disbelieves Dark Energy regardless of their background until it receives a degree of wide acceptance. This is especially problematic considering how controversial Dark Energy/Dark Matter are with non-experts for some reason, despite this not at all being the mainstream stance within physics. I've definitely noticed a few of your edits trend this way, so while I don't really understand the stance I do want to commend you on sticking to WP:ECREE here :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for bringing this up, Drbogdan. I think this is an important area we need to keep our eye on, but I agree with Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ that the scientific evidence has not reached a level to include in this article.  The only evidence presented are two WP:primary sources, a  preliminary year-1 report of the 5 year DESI galaxy survey that claims there are indications that dark energy varies with time, and a single  research paper. WP requires secondary sources (WP:PSTS), but the nonscientific press like the NYT does not qualify because they preferentially report controversial findings and do not have the same standards of notability as the scientific community.  --ChetvornoTALK 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dark energy|Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?]] 

message: The beginning of the second sentence in the lead is wrong. The terms "universe" and "existence" are not mere synonyms; among other things, that is why they have two different articles, instead of one simply redirecting to the other. Claiming nothing exists outside the universe is POV pushing. Philosophy is divided on ontology. Physics by definition does not address it.
To take the term "universe" to mean "all that exists" is an informal notion, not a scholarly one. It is contradicted by such diverse propositions as Platonism and the multiverse. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The universe comprises all of nature, not all of existence (or reality). 

message: This is a large article with lots of scientific information.  A lot of work has gone into it over the years.  Even I don’t think we should have to delete it because the title, Universe, is scientifically unwarranted and unjustifiable.
The term “universe” is so wide-spread in common usage that it is effectively unquestionable.  Among scientific lay-men and expert alike.  Amongst militant atheist and god-fearing mega-church pastor the same.  If all people did was laugh when I told them that I, as a confirmed idealist, do not believe in the universe, I would comfortably share my point of view at will.  But, despite the fact that I hold “the nuts” (poker term), sharing my perspective has never once gone well.  People are indoctrinated so deeply into this non-scientific fallacy that they cannot hear a challenge.  On this topic, certainly, Wikipedia is and has been a major source of dis/misinformation.
The fact is, the whole article over, and including all the previous versions, there isn’t a single reliable source (WP:RS) establishing the propriety of the term universe itself.  I could (perhaps) write an essay investigating the reasons why this fallacious term has become so popular, but the fact remains that, if the Wikipedia community here were to apply as vigorously as they are known to oft do the community standards toward the title/article/term “universe,” the community would not tolerate its usage.  Here, or anywhere on the site?  The term is an unwarranted and unjustifiable abstraction, doomed to a fate worse than that of Newtonian Mechanics (which remains pretty darn useful though ultimately inadequate and wrong).  There is no universe qua Universe.  I could tell you that there are persons harmonizing experientially because, as self-existent ideas (instances of the self-existent idea), we have no capacity to do otherwise, but that would be beyond the scope of this article and dispute?  At length, we need better terminology.
Yesterday I made a revision to the page that assuaged my (continually being triggered by (my forced silence before) the uncritically, inductively, un-reasoned term “universe”) “wrath,” and all it really took was some careful caveats to the introduction/“definition” of the offending term.  There is and cannot be any physical copula encompassing all of existence.  “The physical universe,” if taken literally, is an absolute absurdity.  Thank God Max Plank pointed it out early!:
“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”
https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up
Here is a link to my revision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1225820689
Here is a link to the comparison of the changes made:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=next&oldid=1225820689
I suggest we move the article forward from that basis upon conclusion of this “discussion.”  If no one can justify with rigorous science the term “universe” itself, the article cannot in rights be left standing as it was?  The term “universe” is too prevalent for complete deletion; even if we settled on a new, appropriate term, and migrated all the information there, a page for “the universe” should ever remain standing as a piacular memorial.
God Bless You and yours,
may we thingk (sic) better of ourselves going forward
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DisciplinedIdea (talk • contribs) 
:Please read WP:SOAPBOX, you’re not going to get Wikipedia to remove the term “universe” from the article on the universe, and your edit summaries are wildly inappropriate. I’ve reverted more of your edits, Wikipedia is not the correct avenue for these kind of advocacy, and edits like this are mostly disruptive. You’re welcome to edit the article but just slapping a disputed template on top of the article because you personally dispute the idea of the universe isn’t a great place to start. If you have objections with the provided sources please be more specific so we can all work together to improve it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have the slightest idea of what Wikipedia is about, so I suggest to take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ and the entire field of astronomy.  The term 'universe' is already thoroughly sourced; the Definition section has 10 citations.  DisciplinedIdea, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for your inadequately sourced WP:FRINGE views.  Wikipedia editors are required to be civil to each other (WP:5P4), that means WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS such as  "...don’t lay your filthy hands on me (or anyone like me) again".  WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING like the above can get you blocked. --ChetvornoTALK 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, what  peddles is New Age mysticism, not science. tgeorgescu (talk)  09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @DisciplinedIdea was just indeffed, so back to business as usual. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed