Talk:Big Bang/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Opposing views

Some people here are trying to censor opposing views. But it's standard Wikipedia practice for all notable opposing views to be mentioned. There doesn't need to be concensus for this. A nobel prize winner like Hannes Alfvén is obviously notable, so his views deserve to be mentioned. End of story. Helvetica 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Plasma cosmology is not a notable alternative to Big Bang. Jefffire 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If a Nobel Prize winner holds a viewpoint then that viewpoint is notable and worthy of mention. Period. Helvetica 00:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If we really need to revive this dead horse issue one more time, please answer previous debate on this subject including Talk:Big Bang/Archive4#Art’s turn. Art LaPella 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Art - I browsed through your essay there, but didn't see much relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm not a plasma theorists and really haven't studied much theoretical physics at all, though in full disclosure Newtonian physics and the idea of a universe that's infinate both in size and time does make a lot more sense to me then the Big Bang - at least on an intuitive level.

I never proposed that there should be any significant discussion of plasma theory or any other theory in this article. Simply a summary of notable opposing views and links to more indepth discussion elsewhere. Just about every Wikipedia article has a section on criticisms, and I'm still bewildered that people here are trying to prevent opposing views from even being mentioned!

I actually originally came to this article in search of a discussion of opposing views regarding the big bang theory, but didn't find any at all mentioned in the article and had to do a Wikipedia/Google search to find the relevant articles. This was a severe disservice to me as a Wikipedia user.

In response to claims that dissenting views aren't notable, I'd like to make a couple points. First - in the entire history of the Nobel Prize in Physics (widely regarded as the most prestegious recogniton in the field), only 177 awards have been issued to this date. This number is comparable to or smaller than the number of seats in most national parliaments. If a major bill passes and even just member dissents and issues a strong dissenting opinion, then that opinion is a notable one. (And Mr. Hannes Alfvén might even be more notable than most the other physcis lauriettes.) Second - if plasma cosmology weren't notable then it would have been deleted and it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. So since the article is notable enough to exist on Wikipedia it's notable enough to have a link to it from the relevant articles.

And finally, I think it's worthwhile to note that even much more empirically established scientific theories like evolution have a section on criticisims. The case for evolution can be made with evidence from fossils and DNA which exist here today on Earth, whereas the case for the big bang theory must be made based on an interpretation of light passing through a telescope lens - presumably very old light from very far away - so it's inherently more theoretical and ephemeral.

So I think I've pretty decicively made my case here, though I'm still bewildered that I should even have to argue for such elementary inclusion of notable opposing viewpoints. At any rate, I'm going to once again restore my stub of a summary of opposing views. I think links to notable opposition from philosophical and religious standpoints should also be included here... Helvetica 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as previously stated, notability. The last time around, it was argued that plasma cosmology has virtually no support among researchers in the field, and virtually no mindshare among laymen, so its inclusion here isn't justified. I agree that at least a link to the non-standard cosmology page would be useful, though. --Christopher Thomas 06:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the number of physicists supporting the plasma hypothesis, but even if we assume that number is quite small, a link to it should still be included for the reasons I listed above: 1. Because it's notalbe enough to have a Wikipedia artile and 2. Because it's been endorsed by a very notable Nobel Prize winner in the field. To expand my parliamentary analogy from above, the Big Bang Theory could be compared to a major piece of legislation, say the Patriot Act. If a piece of legislation like that passed and there was even just one dissenting vote, and that congressman or senator published an indepth explanation as to why, then a discussion of that opposing statement would be included and/or linked to from the Wikipedia article about that act.

Also, whatever ends up being linked to (which I think deffinately needs to include creationism as well) needs to be under a heading like "opposition to" or "criticisms of" so that it will be easy for the readers to find. Something like "non-standard cosmology" isn't that clear in this context. Many people don't even know what the word "cosmology" means.

But at any rate, I've yet to see anyone give any good reason for deviating from standard Wikipedia practice and not including at least a brief summary of who disagrees with the Big Bang Theory and why. Helvetica 07:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had to do a Google search to find opposition to the Big Bang, then you missed Big Bang#Features, issues and problems, with its link to non-standard cosmologies and with its 7 subheadings. Non-standard cosmologies, in turn, has a major section on plasma cosmology. Whether non-standard cosmology should be mentioned is a red herring - it already is. Another point from my essay relevant to this discussion is that the Boolean logic article doesn't mention intuitionism at all, even though the relative notability is in the same order of magnitude as measured by Google Scholar hits. As for Alfven and his Nobel Prize, parts of the Talk:Plasma cosmology archives seem to distinguish between Alfven's work and what is called plasma cosmology today. I'm not a professional scientist but I remember what has been hashed over and over. Art LaPella 15:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Art - I think your argument here is the real red herring, and I'll point out a number of flaws in your analogy. First, not only does the Boolean logic article not mention intuitionism, the intuitionism article does not mention Boolean logic. I'm certainly not an expert on intuitionism, but from browsing that article, nothing led me to believe that it was specifically in opposition to Boolean logic. Of course if a leading mathemetician (whatever's on a par with the Nobel Prize, since there's not yet a Nobel math prize) were to have stated that Boolean logic was flawed and advocated intuitionism in its place then each article should deffinately link to the other. Another problem with the analogy is that Boolean logic is not controversial and its implications generally fit with most people's common sense understandings of reality. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is naturally much more controversial because it has profound implications which are at odds with both many traditional relgious beliefs and with classical Newtonian physics and much humanist-philosophical cosmology (ie. infinate space and time). And finally, I'm not an expert on plasma theory, so I don't really know that much about the diversity of theories there or how some theorists may have strayed from Alfven's original ideas, but I don't really see how that's relevant the discussion here (that can all be sorted out in the plasma article). I still have yet to see anyone make any sort of case as to why this article shouldn't summarize and link to opposing viewpoints. Helvetica 22:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, intuitionism is well known to be an alternative to Boolean logic. For instance, the intuitionism article states "the law of the excluded middle, A or not A, is disallowed". Boolean logic#Properties refers to A or not A as one of two "complements".

"Of course, if a leading mathematician..." His name was Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer. He didn't win a Nobel Prize, but since you "don't really know that much about the diversity of theories there or how some theorists may have strayed from Alfven's original ideas", we don't know if Alfven is relevant to modern plasma cosmology anyway.

"Boolean logic is not controversial", except among intuitionists. If there is no way to prove a statement right or wrong, then how is it meaningful to say it has to be one or the other? If a logical argument falls in the middle of the woods and nobody sees it, in what sense did it really fall?

Still don't like my intuitionism example? It should be easy to construct others. The Google Scholar hit ratio of "spacetime" to "wormhole" is 17 to 1, but the spacetime article doesn't mention the minority opinion wormhole. The ratio of "planet" to planet Vulcan is 333 and the ratio of "planet" to "planet X" is 560, but neither minority opinion is found in planet. 333 and 560 are an order of magnitude beyond plasma cosmology's 46, but considering how much non-standard cosmology was already in the Big Bang article even before Christopher Thomas' edit, you would think Vulcan and Planet X would at least rate a "see also".

Don't like any of my examples? Divide the article length by 46, and compare it to at least some of the Big Bang#Features, issues and problems section, and consider that the name of the article is Big Bang, not Plasma Cosmology. And once again, that section of the Big Bang article does indeed "summarize and link to opposing viewpoints."

I don't really care so much who wins, but what bothers me is that these arguments can go on so long without listening to the other side. For instance, instead of insisting "notable" and "not notable", you should either be arguing over whether a ratio of 46 is enough, improving the accuracy of that statistic, or at least arguing that it doesn't matter. I would like to see these arguments settled on some kind of rational basis. Art LaPella 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of order - My edit (diff) rewrote the section that User:Helvetica added. I did not insert the "opposition" section. --Christopher Thomas 05:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He's right. Art LaPella 05:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Art's evaluation. I think that the current article as it stands adequately addresses the existence of alternatives to the Big bang. This is why reversion to the previous version was warranted. --ScienceApologist 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Matter / Dark Energy Understanding

Me being an ammature, I dont understand some parts, I ould like definitons for beginners! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.205.42 (talk • contribs) on 16:06, 22 May 2006.

Just click through the dark matter and dark energy links for explanations. The short version is that "dark matter" is a substance that we've seen indirect evidence for that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but not electromagnetically (doesn't produce or absorb light, doesn't "contact" normal matter the way most observable matter does, might interact via nuclear forces). Galaxies appear to contain large amounts of dark matter, which we notice because it affects the orbits of stars in the galaxy. "Dark energy" is a substance or other type of effect that seems to have mass, but to exert a "negative pressure", causing the universe to expand more quickly. This appears to be spread more or less uniformly throughout space, at least on the scales we can easily observe, and may or may not be related to similar expansion phenomena (the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations or the unknown field that caused cosmic inflation early in the universe's history). For more information, read the links above. --Christopher Thomas 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Theories

I realize that the big bang is recognized as the leading theory on the origin of the universe. However, since there are so many unanswered questions, I think the whole theory could get turned on it's head at any time. I would like to see a link or two at the bottom that leads to articles about competing theories, or at least credible criticisms of the big bang theory.

Qwasty 22:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, and much debated. See Big Bang#Features, issues and problems and #Opposing views. Art LaPella 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Question from - Talk:Hubble's law - issue should be addressed in this article

OK - I understand the concept of the doppler effect on light and how the redshifts are interpreted to mean that the galaxies are moving farther away from eachother...

But what I don't understand is how anyone can know that "the universe" or "space" itself is expanding as opposed to simply matter moving through space. In other words, what if 15 billion (or how ever many) years ago, instead of there being a "big bang" there was simply a bang within a larger existing universe. And ever since then, all this stuff has been expanding out into a really gigantic void which it still hasn't finished crossing after all these years?

What makes physicists so sure that "space" and time and everything began then? How do they know that what we observe as "the universe" isn't simply a small part of something much larger? For all we know, couldn't all the known universe simply exist as part of a subatomic particle in some larger "universe?"

I'll let the professionals answer why they say space itself expands. The answer to everything else is that nobody knows what might be beyond the known universe in extent, time, extra dimensions, parallel universes etc., as described at the end of the first paragraph of Big Bang. Art LaPella 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Space itself is expanding if you believe the observation that leads to the Hubble Law, you believe that general relativity applies on the largest scales, and that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (cosmological principle). Once those three assumptions are made, the FRW metric is a natural result and space expands as described by the cosmic scale factor. All of this is currently discussed in the article under the Theoretical Underpinnings section. --ScienceApologist 02:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Closed Minds

Hello, does anyone know that?---->An Open Letter to Closed Minds Brian Wilson (talk • contribs) on 00:55, 29 May 2006.

It seems like the usual set of arguments put forth by proponents of non-standard cosmologies. However, as is usual for such essays, it fails to note either the evidence in favour of the Big Bang or the problems with its proposed alternatives. The Big Bang model wasn't accepted overnight; on the contrary, it was only accepted after a sufficiently large amount of evidence for its claims was produced to justify discarding the then-mainstream steady-state models. The "fudge factors" the article mentions only became accepted after many independent pieces of evidence pointed to them. Specifically:

• Expansion of the universe is required in order to produce a universe compatible with General Relativity that doesn't collapse in on itself (the expanding universe is, more or less, a time-reversal of the equations describing such a collapse). Proposing a steady-state model that doesn't collapse requires giving up General Relativity, which has so far survived every test we've been able to throw at it.
• Rapid expansion of the universe from a very hot, dense state is required to explain the abundances of elements observed in the cosmos. Specifically, deuterium wouldn't be seen, anywhere, if the only way of producing it was in stars, as it's burned up as quickly as it's produced. A universe that existed in a steady-state would also have to propose some means of producing hydrogen out of nowhere and getting rid of the fusion products of stars. All of these would require new physics at least as exotic as what the Big Bang model proposes.
• The cosmic microwave background is a very-nearly-perfect blackbody spectrum. Expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state perfectly explains both the existence of this background and its spectrum. Despite lots of effort on several fronts, none of the alternatives proposed have been able to duplicate this effect.
• Dark matter is required to explain the rotation mechanics of galaxies, and the relative amounts of the elements produced during the big bang nucleosynthesis. Gravitational lensing measurements around galaxy clusters have been able to directly demonstrate its existence.
• Cosmic inflation is the most reasonable explanation anyone's been able to think of for the fact that our best measurements of the universe's expansion and contents have it at very, very close to the "critical density" (below which it disperses, above which it collapses). As any deviation from the critical density tends to amplify itself quickly, some mechanism definitely _was_ present to fine-tune it. Inflation can be tested by looking very closely at the microwave background to look for the levels of fluctuation expected from a given amount of inflated growth, and the best observations available at present put disturbances in the background at just the right range.
• Dark energy wasn't something added to make the Big Bang model work - it was something we found out by looking into the sky and seeing its effects. In hindsight, the existence of a repulsive effect shouldn't have been that surprising, as both cosmic inflation and the cosmological constant in the equations of General Relativity point to similar phenomena. However, because it was so unexpected, it wasn't accepted until a very large pile of evidence built up for it.

Specific problems with the alternatives proposed by the article you link are:

• Steady-state models of the universe have to invoke lots of new physics to explain where hydrogen comes from, why we see deuterium, and where iron, carbon, and other "ash" from stars goes. The ones that best fit observations of the universe generally propose expansion from a hot, dense state for our local region of the universe. In other words, a big bang, but with some distant part of the universe continuing to exist in a primordial state. I don't see how either of these options are less arbitrary than the Big Bang model itself.
• Plasma cosmology is discussed at length elsewhere. The short version of the critique is that the filaments and holes it predicts haven't been observed, the structure of galaxies only looks like the _cross section_ of the discharge tube structures plasma cosmology was inspired by, their proposed mechanism for producing the microwave background doesn't produce the right spectrum, they have no proposed mechanism for producing deuterium, and they still have to invoke new physics to produce hydrogen and dispose of ash.

In short, far from being an arbitrary collection of fudge factors, the Big Bang model is the product of generations of astrophysicists trying to find models that explain the observed features of the cosmos. It's the best we've been able to come up with so far. The alternatives proposed to date explain less and require more handwaving. --Christopher Thomas 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As detailed in this Jimbo quote among other Wikipedia policy statements, we are expected to report well-known opinions, not to decide which one is right. Mr. Wilson's link would be relevant if it showed a significant new unreported anti-Big Bang opinion, but these opinions and signers are almost identical with http://www.cosmologystatement.org, already referenced from non-standard cosmology which is linked from Big Bang. Art LaPella 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of Wikipedia policies: I meant only to discover if any open minds are still reading this encyclopedia. I am realizing that Wikipedians use to fight against every non-standard and non-conservative research. In many cases this is useful, because it prevents pseudoscience and trolling, but I am afraid that science will not go forward for the next 100 years.Brian Wilson 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, an open mind is always willing to discard their favourite model if a different one better supported by evidence comes along. Right now, the model that best fits observational data is the lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang. Having proponents of models like plasma cosmology accuse BBM researchers of being closed-minded is therefore deeply ironic, as they're the ones deciding to ignore observations rather than let go of their favourite model.

Research into alternate cosmological models does happen, as most scientists consider the Big Bang model to be incomplete at best. The thing is, the alternate models being investigated aren't ones that have already been disproven by observations, unlike most of the ones cited in the article you link. --Christopher Thomas 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my policy quote was about original research, not neutrality. Neutrality is another issue, and the Big Bang article hopefully complies by mentioning non-standard cosmology without over-emphasizing it. Art LaPella 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that non-standard cosmology will never get anywhere, becouse researchers will never get enough funds, and because religions still control the governments (and, who knows, maybe it's better this way). Anyway I am not interested in a dispute, thank you for the nice talk, goodbye and good luck. Brian Wilson 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Coming up with a better cosmological model doesn't *require* funds. One of the wonderful things about tenure is that you can write papers on whatever you darn well please. _Testing_ a cosmological model takes telescope and satellite time, but 1) once you have a model with bona fide testable predictions, you can _get_ this time, and 2) chances are the data you want has already been collected for other purposes, so you get your first few arrays of tests for free.

The real problem with most (though not all) alternative cosmological models proposed to date is the problem I mentioned in my first response: they produce predictions that contradict observations, require new physics that's at least as exotic as anything in the Big Bang model, or both. There are a few contenders that don't suffer these problems, and these _are_ being actively researched. So, claims that some grand conspiracy is suppressing non-standard cosmologies end up looking pretty silly. --Christopher Thomas 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am silly. I'm not interested in this discussion for now, I'll be back in 15-20 years, in the meantime, good luck. Brian 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Open Questions in Relativistic Physics

Open Questions in Relativistic Physics Brian 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Removed to User Talk:Morrigan42. Talk pages are for discussing the article and not for promoting your own ideas. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How does one discuss anything without bringing to bear one's convictions, prejudices, experience, training, logic - all of which can be called quite simply one's ideas. Discussing without promoting one's ideas, is surely not possible. Paul venter 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this article include alternative theories?

not just the views of a few narrow minded POV pushers?--F.O.E. 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. The degree to which various views of the Big Bang are covered should be proportional to the number of experts who support these views. As the vast majority of scientists think some form of the Big Bang model describes the early history of the universe, and as the article is _about_ the Big Bang, the present mentions of alternatives are adequate. --Christopher Thomas 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the vast majority of scientists believe in Piltdown Man until it was proved a hoax? Didn't the vast majority of scientists snort at the idea of large-scale glaciation until it was proved? Didn't the vast majority of scientists hoot with derision at the quaint notion of moving continental plates? The list is endless of good establishment science committing the most atrocious blunders while desperately clinging to its pet theories. And if anyone thinks that sort of attitude doesn't exist today or won't exist in the future, they can draw comfort from the very many who agree with them. Paul venter 22:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. If Wikipedia had been published before 1953, it would have published Piltdown Man as established science. We have a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy because the alternative isn't that Wikipedians would have magically been the first to know that Piltdown Man was a fraud - the real alternative is that Wikipedians would publish everything from perpetual motion machines to crystal balls in science articles. Scientists should decide if Piltdown Man and his modern equivalents are wrong. Wikipedian amateurs should report those scientific opinions from around the world to the public, not their own amateur opinions. Please study this discussion page and its archives before concluding you have an insight on this issue that we haven't heard over and over and over. Art LaPella 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As C.Thomas correctly states, alternatives appear insofar as they represent proportionally their support in the scientific community. Because of progress in observation (see for example WMAP), technology, and the foundations of science (namely mathematics and physics) this proportion will change over time. It is therefore our NPOV obligation to correctly represent this proportion as well as the foundations of the theory itself. You are always welcome to start an article for an alternative theory on Wiki, provided it is cited correctly and not your own theory... which brings me to my final point: the Big Bang theory rests not upon a single person, era, or worldview. It is represented here at Wiki as it currently stands: upon generations of observation, physics, and mathematics, and not by "POV Pushers" you speak of. If you find an alternate theory that stands thus, feel free to contribute it. And if you'd like to discuss this or any other scientific theory, please let me know on my talk page - I have been a scientist in this field for years and I would be glad to discuss of any ideas, thoughts, or misunderstandings of the current scientific consensus of this theory. This is my passion, not hubris. Cheers, Astrobayes 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My goodness! "not their own amateur opinions", "I have been a scientist for years and I would be glad to clear up any misunderstandings you may have." The history of science revolves around the contributions of dedicated and brilliant amateurs.(Perhaps this is material for an article that might instil some humility in arrogant professional scientists). My view of a scientist is perhaps slightly broader than that he should have some paper qualification certifying his expertise in some narrow field. As for experience, a lot of professional scientists seem to confuse that with growing older, or with how many trivial papers they have published in a suitably prestigious journal. I have found throughout my life, that the true scientist is neither arrogant nor patronising, that he is unstinting in giving of his time, and that his curiosity about the world around him, knows no bounds. These are the people who stand out from the common crowd. Science is shamed by such vainglorious strutting. Paul venter 19:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm the amateur, not you, both in paper qualifications and in understanding of the Big Bang's details. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy makes it clear that we are here to publish the existing consensus. Since you've been a scientist for years, I encourage you to change that consensus through the usual process of scientific journals etc. Art LaPella 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree that the alternatives discussed so far don't work. But that isn't a proof for big bang. I personally think the universe works along the following cycle:

In the "empty" areas of Margaret Geller's "bubbles" Neutrons are generated being converted to stable Protons. The protons themselves move to the galaxies at the bubble walls because of their kinetic energy and the applying gravitational gradient. At the edges of the galaxies they meet "colleagues" forming a gas getting absorbed by and/or building new stars. The stars undergo the known transitions (merging, exploding, ageing etc.) while moving to the galactic centers. At the centers they either miss it a bit, being thrown into the halo (entering the center again much later, usually when burnt out) or merge with other stars in the center. When critical mass is reached in the ultimately formed neutron stars the mass "disappears" forming m^2=hc/G (that no longer behaves like a mass and therefore makes us believe that in the space we see there is more or less a vacuum).

The newly formed m^2 moves back into the empty volume of the Geller-bubble along it's concentration gradient (resp. following the distribution of entropy). Somewhen it disproportionates there to become m (proton via neutron) again, moving to the bubble wall ....

As there is no reason to believe that this cycle doesn't happen somewhere I think we have this steady state mechanism in an infinitely large and old universe.

Remains the question who put the infinite amount of m^2=hc/G in place to run the cycle. I personally believe that any "absolute nothing" disproportionates into planck charges that combine into dipoles forming the planck mass and then combine further into quadrupoles building a real square: m^2=hc/G. This mostly remains as it is because it seems to be an energetically preferred state but also with very low probabilities either reverts to the energetically less preferred "absolute nothing" again (via planck mass and then isolated planck charges that quench each other) or combines (about 10^17 times) to the also energetically less preferred neutron with back-formation being prevented by conversion into the energetically stable proton. This back formation however comes to bear when the protons get converted into neutrons in a neutron star in the galactic center.--Oddy 02:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this would seem to violate several Wikipedia policies, for instance the template at the top of this discussion page: "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Big Bang article...this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally." This theory (like all the others) doesn't belong on the main article page unless it has a significant number of influential advocates, not just us. Art LaPella 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, which is what I was trying to state above. P. Venter has mistaken my desire, to hold this article to the standards of the consensus of scientists in this field, with hubris. I simply stated above what the article reflects: the weight of experiment, mathematics, and physics, and I furthermore hope that our focus upon this article is based upon those criteria rather than who supports or opposes the idea itself. And I'll say again as I've stated above: anyone who may have a misconception about the current consensus may discuss these on my talk page. I've worked in this field for years as a physicist and I enjoy sharing knowledge with others, especially if it means a higher quality of articles here on Wiki. I'm confused how within that context my comments can be construed as hubris so I'll clear it up now: my desire is to contribute quality to Wiki - and by that, to share knowledge with others. Cheers, Astrobayes 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)