Talk:Copernican principle

message: The Copernican pricipal alone would leave no center of the solar system. Applying Occam's Razor however places the sun at the center of the solar system. Hackwrench 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment moved from main page 

message: The paragraph "The philosopher..." does not beloing here at all. The topic should be under Copernican revolution or something. The redirect from Copernican revolution to here is inadequate. The last paragraph would be more apprioprate  in the article Cosmological principle. This content is lacking there. Andres 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some content to be removed

message: I removed the definition that was here before, namely 
that no "special" observers should be proposed.
since in science at least the Copernican principle refers to us, it does not prohibit some other class of observers from being special.
I'm tidying up the discussion of the Copernican principle in cosmology. This page needs to be separated into two, one for the Copernican principle, and one for the Copernican revolution. These are very different concepts!
Oops, forgot to sign: PaddyLeahy 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major re-write 

message: This article needs a bit of general cleanup, especially in tone, which is too informal for an encyclopedia article at points. It could also benefit from some expansion.
In any case, I added the NPOV Check tag because it doesn't seem entirely fair to criticisms of the Copernican principal. This entire section could use a lot of work and expansion, and really ought to include more recent evidence, like the evidence discussed by Dr. Gonzalez. Moreover, there is not a section dedicated to evidence for the Copernican Principle, so the article is unbalanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  207.152.116.237 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 August 2007  (UTC)
:Hi 207..., please sign your comments! Feel free to improve the English. An NPOV check would show that critics of the Copernican principle are a tiny minority of cosmologists and thus on the usual NPOV rules they are grossly over-represented by even being mentioned in this article. But since Krauss is a major figure and the WMAP results have attracted some publicity it seems reasonable to include this section. I very much doubt that Krauss believes we should abandon the CP but he obviously felt an open-minded statement was called for. If you can cite a published, peer-reviewed article by Dr Gonzalez you could try to include it... I have no idea what his position is. The evidence for the CP, of course, is that the whole of modern cosmology is based on it and that theory now has many successes of both the predictive and explanatory kind. PaddyLeahy 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I don't believe the theory that the universe is expanding (metric expansion), because of the Copernican principle! Well... I don't have a full understanding of it really... lol but at any rate PLEASE properly cite the theory in the article.  haha Robert M Johnson (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for metric expansion 

message: On 20 Sept, 2007, someone going by the name of, "Chalnoth" removed the following text from the article, stating that; "Lawrence Krauss was in no way, shape, or form intimating that the Earth is at the center of the universe".  Although the referenced Edge article makes clear that Krauss was not advocating that the observational data was correct, he was indeed confirming the direct observational implications of the WMAP anomalies, which have since been refined to include other galaxy systems in a similarly meaningful manner, as was anticipated might happen within the very text of the Wikipedia article.  This person also removed other evidence from an article from CERN that was only confirmed by Krauss' statement, strongly indicating that "Chalnoth" is consciously attempting to prejudicially censor the evidence.  It should be emphasised that this kind of unscientific and preconceived ideological prejudice is commonly known to stem from what Brandon Carter identified as "anticentrist dogma", which scientists generally harbor, both, consciously and subconsciously, that causes them to willfully ignore clear evidence that runs contrary to the copernican cosmological extension, especially if it includes any form of anthropic significance.
The section to be restored and modified, previously read as follows:
Evidence against the Copernican principle
Some recent results from WMAP appear to run counter to Copernican expectations. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universeCERN Courier "Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?" preprint 
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:"The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero." 
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." 
It would be somewhat surprising if the WMAP alignments were a complete coincidence, but the anti-Copernican implications suggested by Krauss would be far more surprising, if true. Other possibilities are (i) that residual instrumental errors in  WMAP cause the effect (ii) that expected microwave emission from within the solar system is contaminating the maps.Copi et al. op. cit.  Richard A. Ryals (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Information Prejudicially Removed 

message: The  16th. and 17th. centuries are mentioned in the article, although Pythagoras 
lived long before then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.229.26 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  16th century 

message: :I suggest reading Wikipedia:Advocacy and please avoid original research. -- Kheider (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Krauss' quote. Wyattmj (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Quoting an abstract is not the same as showing a reliable source that states that the Copernican principle is now a known failure. Provide such a reference or you are committing Wikipedia:NOR. -- Kheider (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

text: re "The Oddly Quiet Universe": The article in question makes no reference at all to the "Copernican principle". The full text ends thus: "Future results from the Planck satellite may show these large-angle/low-anomalies to be nothing more than systematic errors in the measurements or analysis of the WMAP (and the COBE) team, but unless and until they do these anomalies remain the outstanding point of disagreement between the standard cosmological model and observations." Paul B (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Planck results have been released, and the anomalies are still there, and even better defined, and extended into more multi-poles. That is why these edits are timely. The Planck data release was March 21st. Wyattmj (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  kheider 

message: I thought the page was too biased because it did not include the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite. So, I made a few changes. The sentence that talks about the alternate explanations being not reasonable, I don't know if I should keep it or remove it. What does the wikipedia community think? 
"Studies on WMAP and COBE data have claimed to have refuted the alignments as statistical anomalies[10][11] or local phenomena[12], but the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly assert the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings.[13] These alternate explanations have been discussed and shown not reasonable solutions by Copi, et. al., who looked to Planck to resolve whether the preferred direction and alignmments are spurious.[14][15]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondandrs (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I could use some help around here. Be sure to sign your name by placing 4 tilde's after your posts on this page. It is clear that the Planck data has substantiated the WMAP and COBE results, and the Copernican Principle is in question at this time. Wyattmj (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I reverted your edits, plus added the Lawrence Krauss' quote also (which was present when I started working on this article). Wyattmj (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite should not have been removed 

message: This quality of the article has not been improving over the last month and there seems to be a recurring and persistent dispute about whether the Copernican principle is "proved" or "disproved" by using the Cosmic microwave background anisotropies found by a few recent surveys of the sky. The intricacies of the subject matter is beyond my level of expertise, but there seems to be no shortage of reverts, poor editing practices, and tempers that contest this. Let's resolve the issue by examining what the peer-reviewed sources have said, if anything, and summarize or regurgitate their finding here, if any. This issue has been referred to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, so give it a few days rest while someone reviews the situation. There is somewhere between 10 to 14 users (not including myself) who are involved in the dispute, all of which are being asked to go to the WP:DRN to participate.
I am asking that no one make substantial changes to the second half of the article while this dispute is being resolved. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to avoid editing the sections which are disputed. I didn't mean to be the Article Police setting up a Barricade. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreferenced statements/original research will need to be removed from the article. -- Kheider (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

text: And long as their statements are properly referenced, I have no problem with it. -- Kheider (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISPUTE 

message: I am pretty sure there are still minor complaints about the article, but nobody can deny that it has improved :).Diamondandrs (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It has improved, and relevant information is making it into the article. We are still in the dispute process. Wyattmj (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is improving slowly but surely 

message: Large-angle anomalies in the CMB
Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602.pdf
I. INTRODUCTION: WHY LARGE SCALES ARE INTERESTING?
The Copernican principle states that the Earth does
not occupy a special place in the universe and that ob-
servations made from Earth can be taken to be broadly
characteristic of what would be seen from any other point
in the universe at the same epoch. The microwave sky is
isotropic, apart from a Doppler dipole and a microwave
foreground from the Milky Way. Together with the
Copernican principle and some technical assumptions,
an oft-inferred consequence is the so-called cosmological
principle. It states that the distributions of matter and
light in the Universe are homogeneous and isotropic at
any epoch and thus also de�nes what we mean by cosmic
time.
This set of assumptions is a crucial, implicit ingredi-
ent in obtaining most important results in quantitative
cosmology. For example, it allows us to treat cosmic mi-
crowave background (CMB) temperature uctuations in
di�erent directions on the sky as multiple probes of a sin-
gle statistical ensemble, leading to the precision determi-
nations of cosmological parameters that we have today.
Although we have some observational evidence that ho-
mogeneity and isotropy are reasonably good approxima-
tions to reality, neither of these are actual logical conse-
quences of the Copernican principle. For example the ge-
ometry of space could be homogeneous but anisotropic |
like the surface of a sharp mountain ridge, with a gentle
path ahead but the ground dropping steeply away to the
sides. Indeed, three-dimensional space admits not just
the three well known homogeneous isotropic geometries
(Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic {
E3,S3 and H3), but �ve others which are homogeneous but anisotropic.
The two simplest are S2E1 and H2E1. These spaces
support the cosmological principle but have preferred di-
rections.
Similarly, although the Earth might not occupy a privi-
leged place in the universe, it is not necessarily true that
all points of observation are equivalent. For example,
the topology of space may not be simply-connected |
we could live in a three-dimensional generalization of a
torus so that if you travel far enough in certain direc-
tions you come back to where you started. While such
three-spaces generically admit locally homogeneous and
isotropic geometries, certain directions or points might be
singled out when non-local measurements are considered.
For example the length of the shortest closed non-trivial
geodesic through a point depends on the location of that
point within the fundamental domain. Similarly, the in-
homogeneity and anisotropy of eigenmodes of di�eren-
tial operators on such spaces are likely to translate into
statistically inhomogeneous and anisotropic large scale
structure, in the manner of Chladni �gures on vibrating
plates...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This old chestnut again?  There was a dispute.  You were there.  It was closed because you offered no response to the mediator's questions.  Lithopsian (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who was asked to present evidence to back the claims being made on the page.  I was the one removing them because the comments were not supported.  To quote, "Okay, it is time to start the discussion, if editors are still interested. I think the first step would be for editors that want the material to be included to provide sources here. If the sources do not explicitly mention the "Copernican principle" then a really good justification will be needed, based on the WP:SYNTH policy. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I am beginning to see a lot of weasel words such as "disturbing claims". -- Kheider (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copi et. al., tie the anisotropies to the Copernican Principle

message: Wikipedia goes to great lengths to define its policies on synthesis and original research, but I'll offer a concrete example.
The recent set of edits by Diamondadnrs are claimed to be "almost verbatim to the sources" and "not using weasel words".  One sentence states: "In particular, some anomalies have been reported to be aligned with the ecliptic which would be a clear violation of the Copernican Principle,[13] as would any preferred direction in space." with http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5915 as a reference.  This paper includes the words "anomalies", "alignment", "violation", and "Copernican", however never in the same sentence and never to state that alignment of anomalies with the ecliptic is a clear violation of the Copernican principle.  The word "ecliptic" doesn't even appear in the paper.  In a nutshell, that is synthesis: forming your own conclusions that at best are only hinted at by the writers in the reference, and at worst are not their conclusions at all.
In this case, I'll offer another quote from the same reference that should make clear the author's thoughts on the subject: "The violation of the cosmological principle is expected to occur at a small level even on Hubble scales due to small statistical fluctuations of the cosmic energy density."  In other words the universe isn't 100% isotropic and we don't expect it to be, a far cry from claiming we occupy a special position.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of "synthesis" 

message: Here is a web site that is relevant:  http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/.  It is run by Catholic apologists that are attempting to show that God created the earth.   They are promoting (producing?) a movie called "The Principle".   They attack science in general, but especially focus on the earth:  they claim the Earth is the center of the universe (and Genesis is correct).  It appears that the same apologists are attempting to edit several articles in WP to further that agenda. --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular web site is run by Robert Sungenis, who is a big proponent of geocentrism, see Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism.  It is likely he, or associates of his, that have been adding the CMB radiation material to this article. --Noleander (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic apologists

message: Diamondadnrs:  I'm having a hard time finding the material from these sources that show that the source is discussing the copernican principle.  Could you supply quotes from these sources that show clearly that the source is discussing the CP?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this sentence: "The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe"  because it does not make sense.  Could the author clarify what the point was?  And how it relates to the C.P.? --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed this sentence: " The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly asserts the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings."   I see no mention of C. P. in the sources, and the sentence is not readily understandable to readers. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The Mariano paper doesn't discuss alignment with the ecliptic, which is the sentence it is claimed to support.  It discusses alignments between various anomalies such the CMB multipoles and dark flow, so actually contradicts alignment with the ecliptic.  It does address alignment of a great many features, including multipoles other than 3/4.  For alignment with the ecliptic, the 2013 Planck paper is probably the best.  It addresses this issue specifically using the latest data: the quadropole and octopole axes are 9-13 degrees apart.  Asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres wrt to the ecliptic is found, but the exact alignment of the axis is not defined, since the method for showing the asymmetry depends on picking the axis first and seeing to what extent it is supported.  Lithopsian (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I think you need to be very careful with extracting quotes from the Copi review paper.  He expressly mentions the Copernican principle as being an assumption behind almost our entire cosmology and does point out that the multiple anisotropies are simply not consistent with our current best models.  However, at no point does he claim that this contradicts the Copernican principle and goes to great pains to point out in the conclusions that the current models are robustly supported to a very high degree of precision (albeit using several arbitrary parameters) with just the tiniest anomalies at the limits of detection.  Also, he does not deny the possibility of local phenomena or systematic observational errors being responsible for the multiples and their alignments; he simply can't think of any reason for those to be true.  Just as he can't see any reason for the universe as a whole to have an alignment.  Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I am having difficulty in understanding why this article fails to attribute findings that are disputed. WP:NPOV states  Land and Magueijo's 2005 paper spawned numerous other studies that disputed those findings, partially or in whole. A quick look at Cosmic microwave background radiation gives the bigger picture and a much more balanced picture of the mainstream view of these anomalies. We should not be casting disputed conclusions of a primary study in Wikipedia's voice. These need to be attributed, so that the reader does not mistake them for fact. It is also important in these cases to ensure that other views, which may be critical of such conclusions, are also properly represented as NPOV makes clear:  --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from sources needed 

message: Several recent edits have been made to add "balance" to the CMB multipole ecliptic alignment claims.  However, these may be missing the point.  While some errors in data and analysis have been discovered, the multipoles remain, albeit somewhat less closely aligned than first suggested and with the ecliptic alignment uncertain.  Minor quibbling over the last decimal place in the data distracts from the main issue, which is whether all this has anything at all to do with the Copernican principle, and if so whether this one currently-unclear observation deserves a paragraph in the lead without mention of thousands of more solid papers on the subject.
One point nobody has noticed so far is that the definition of the Copernican principle given in the Land and Magueijo paper is not the one given in this article.  In terms of Wikipedia articles, they describe the Cosmological principle, that is that the universe is (approximately) isotropic and homogeneous.  It could easily be neither, as flat as a pancake or as pointed as an arrow, the cosmological principle could be utterly dead, but our position could still be entirely un-special.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While all of that is true, it does not detract from the point I make above that we have to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't really care if you want to scare quote "balance"; the principle is not negotiable that we don't present opinions as facts and that we represent fairly and proportionately all relevant views published by reliable sources. Liu and Li (2009) show that the processing of WMAP was problematical; Sawangwit and Shanks explore systematic errors in the data and suggest that simple cosmologies would fit; Liu and Li (2011) demonstrate that a timing error could cause the quadrupole to be substantially overestimated. You can't dismiss these findings as "minor quibbling over the last decimal place", because they are not. If we are to include Land and Magueijo (2005), then first of all we must attribute it; and secondly we must ensure that its reliably-sourced criticisms are noted. Otherwise the reader will receive completely the wrong impression of the status of the Copernican principle - that we are not in a special position in the universe. I agree that the question over whether the universe may be inhomogeneous and anisotropic (as quantum fluctuations in its early history would imply) is only tangentially related to this article, but that's just my personal opinion and we really should be seeking a reliable secondary source that provides that commentary. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I just don't feel that the given references are the balance that is needed.  This sentence currently in the lead asserts that the CMB data shows (or appears to show) that we are in a special position in the universe (or else why is it here at all), and the "balance" is merely arguing about the reliability of that data and analysis when actually none of the references given claim we occupy a special position in the universe.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Possibly we could describe various different definitions such as "Generalised Copernican principle" or "Genuine Copernican principle".  I'm not sure it would be helpful though.  I don't think there is widespread agreement about what different qualifications mean, they just tend to get bandied about by different people with a point to make.  Physicists tend not to talk about the Copernican principle a great deal, since it is implicit but not amenable to proof.  Rather the cosmological principle is the one that gets addressed and tested.  It also wouldn't help in this case, since the authors simply refer to the Copernican principle but then describe the Cosmological principle. Lithopsian (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The sources themselves determine whether they are relevant to this article, not you nor I nor any other editor. You have an editor disputing that isotropy is a characteristic of the Copernican principle, and yet you are trying to add content from another source that does not even mention the Copernican principle. The only authors that seem to think that homogeneity and isotropy are part of the Copernican principle are Land and Magueijo and their work is disputed. Surely we are now wandering so far off the mainstream scientific view of the Copernican principle that we are pushing the boundaries of undue weight? What do the good quality secondary reviews and textbooks (that should be the basis for this article) say about the Copernican principle? Those are the sources that define what should be in a Wikipedia scientific article as WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear. Of the 31 references in this article, I can see about 5 that seem to qualify as secondary, and it's a very bad sign for any article to be so dependent on primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "balance" 

message: Dear Mr. Mark J. Wyatt and others,
Your electronic trail is extensive concerning your "movie" and your opinions on geocentrism. You appear to be a political, religious, or commercial activist who is promoting a view that the Earth is the center of the universe. While this would at first glance seem to be just a trivial thought process that might be debated in an open forum, it appears that you have deceitfully promoted your views by editing this and other articles instead of engaging in the improvement of Wikipedia articles. As demonstrated in the link above to your http://theprinciplemovie.com/ forum, you are actively trying to use Wikipedia to promote your viewpoint.
Here are some of the discussions of which you have been a part of and some links to the relevant issues:
*NeoGeocentrism: An Ill-Conceived Attempt to Drag Galileo Back Into the Culture Wars
*http://www.geocentrism.com/
*, mentioned in IMDB as being directed by Katherine Thomas
*Discussion in which you mention Galileo Was Wrong as a book you helped produce
*Galileo Was Wrong, in which your name and picture appears at this link: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/conference.jpg and you gave a speech on "Introduction to the mechanics of Geocentrism."
*Catholic Truths, your blog from 2006-2008
*Amazon link to Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, , .
I intend to use a little activism on my part unless you stop your campaign. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I may be late to the game. User: Wyattmj has been blocked. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I like to saw logs. Yes, I had already blocked Wyattmj indefinitely per the link posted by Lithopsian above. But you absolutely didn't waste your time researching this. Clearly we all need to look out for meatpuppets working either covertly or obviously to reinsert the same agenda. I appreciate the further links you provide. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocentrism and Activism 

message: It looks like our heated discussion of yesteryear was ahead of the game in some ways. I am not trying to add in a random "news" article just for fun. But here is an article written about some of the potential, uh, "issues" that "The Principle" (2014) (IMDB Link) has in regards to people "disavowing" the premise of the movie. Apparently the movie is not only about the theory being wrong (and thus controversial), there is growing concern that the people responsible for the movie's content (i.e. producer Rick DeLano) have caught other people involved unaware of its intent to present a theory incompatible with Copernicus. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or at least in and around the cosmic microwave background. I am guessing that the recent press and the impending release of the movie will renew interest in the Copernican theory. (-ies?)
I mainly wanted to forewarn people that this article could become heavily trafficked, edited, warred against, and quite a but difficult to handle. I am sounding the alarm. The next time you hear from me may be when I light one lantern if the Little Endians come, and two lanterns if the Big Endians come. I will see you in Lilliput. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wars likely at The Principle. Lithopsian (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the News... 

message: Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the solar system, which contradicts the Copernican principle by suggesting that the solar system's alignment is special.[11]
In which source is being said that? I'm not en expert but newscientist says:
The "axis of evil" was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck's detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP's, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. "We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features," said Efstathiou.
So, what exactly indicates that our solar system's alignment is special? --Riddlemaster (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You've linked to the wrong paper there... as far as I can see some issues haven't been entirely resolved but the sections were badly written so I'm not going to re-add them. ··gracefool💬 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special alignment 

message: It has been pointed out that the Copernican revolution could just as well be called the Aristarchan revolution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.129.194 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It could just as well be called the Pythagorean, Philolauan or Seleucan revolution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.68.146 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristarchus 

message: This article says "It becomes more and more homogeneous and isotropic when observed on larger and larger scales, with little detectable structure on scales of more than about 200 million parsecs.", but End of Greatness says "The End of Greatness is an observational scale discovered at roughly 100 Mpc (roughly 300 million lightyears) where the lumpiness seen in the large-scale structure of the universe is homogenized and isotropized in accordance with the Cosmological Principle." Which of these is correct, 100 Mpc or 200 Mpc? Sir Cumference π 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of Greatness 

message: (copied from my talk page to be continued here) StarryGrandma (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened back in February. If you had just put the material in I might have done so. But you removed part of a sentence and the two references supporting it, and replaced it with an unsupported statement. Your edit summary was . However the links were not dead and it does not matter if sources are behind a paywall. Most academic journals are behind a paywall. There was no need to remove what you did to add a sentence about Bruno. As to response, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When reverted go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

text: , you removed correct information with two references, calling it incorrect. This made it look like you were an editor making random changes and may have not known what you were doing. It happens to this article often. You did not provide any references for what you added. I reverted the change. The next step is up to you. If you want the information there, as you seem to, please provide a reference. Or come to this page to say why the information should be there without a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could I remind everyone here to observe the WP:CIVIL policy to the letter. Whatever the facts of the case, we should avoid exclamatory remarks and personal criticism, however justified it may seem to be, and we can reach an appropriate consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  You deleted my change erroneously.  Please let us do not start a Revert War!  

message: Hello, I was looking at this article, and it seems to me that attention from an expert is no longer necessary.
Thanks!
Sam-2727 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more attention needed?