Talk:Big Bang/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Inflation solving horizon problem

This exchange was taken from the featured article removal page:

Comment -- it is a fact that the apparent inconsistency (do we need to refer to a dictionary as to what an "apparent" inconsistency is?) is resolved by inflationary theory. Of course there are those people who dislike inflationary theory, but that's not the point of the problem being described. Joshuaschroeder 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Linde happens to be one of my favored modern scientist, and I keep updated of his research very frequently. More inflationist than him, I don't know anyone. So before suggesting I dislike inflationary theory, try supposing that maybe my actual concern is unrelated to my opinions here. The quote: "This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory," is sure not NPOV, it is a taking of position, and this, regardless of if it is true or not. Fadix 18:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

How is it not NPOV? The inconsistency is apparent and it is resolved by inflation. That's a fact. So where's the beef? Joshuaschroeder 20:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how this sentence isn't NPOV. Perhaps User:Fadix can be more explicit. Joshuaschroeder 20:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]

"Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange."

"There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth."

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so."

Have those in mind, and read those quotes I am going to post, and tell me how they are in accordance with the above concept of NPOV.

"The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with..." (affirmation of truth). The rest of the Overview section maintain this same tone, to finaly, in the last paragraph mention: "All these observations...," wile the section and statments are not limited to observations but hypotheses based on other observations.

The early universe as a concept exists only in the context of the Big Bang and there is no view I have seen that this is incorrect. If you have a reference to someone claiming that the early universe wasn't filled homogeneously and isotropically with radiation, let us see the citation. As far as I know, nobody has a different view of what the early universe was filled with. I don't know of any other competing theory that describes a dynamically evolving universe other than the Big Bang. If you think that it is POV that there was an early universe then you aren't describing the early universe anymore and really cannot comment on the quote. If you are trying to say that simply starting a sentence with "The early universe was" is giving undue acceptance to the concept that an early universe existed at all, then how would you rephrase it? Joshuaschroeder 23:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Now comming to the quote: "This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory," ... While my English is limited, the term apparent has an equivalent in French, and I am under the impression that it really doesn't sound right, given the rest of that part and its tone.

I still don't understand what your problem with the statement is.

ap·par·ent adj.

1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.

The inconsistency is each of those things. In the context of inflationary theory, it is absolutely true that this apparent inconsistency is resolved (since that was, in some sense, why the theory was designed in the first place). How is this not NPOV? We're not saying here that the inflationary universe is the only possible resolution that anyone can think of, but simply that the apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory. Please, offer a rewording if you think it is NPOV. Joshuaschroeder 23:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are just few examples, since you wanted more examples. I do realise that there is no one article that would be really compleatly NPOV, including featured articles, and more people are adherent to the majority view maintained in an article, more it appears that a POV slightly on the right side of the median passes as incognito, the ironic here is that I do adhere to the majority position and that I believe that making such articles as compleatly NPOV is a protection against revert wars.

Lastly, on second consideration, some articles, more particularly in the scientific field, could not make without overruling a little bit, the NPOV policy. Fadix 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Fadix 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Helium abundance

I'm a stock market guy, but I think this is wrong: "there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the universe should have more helium than deuterium". Stellar fusion is an obvious reason. Although deuterium is an intermediate step, it is believed that the main product of stellar fusion is helium. Am I missing something? Art LaPella 18:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• This was explained away by Pdn on my user talk page. Art LaPella 05:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it in a slightly more complicated way, but basically according to Art LaPella's suggestion. Clearly, as it read, it was a trap for the novice, even the bright one.

Big Bang in the London financial markets

I would like to write a page about the deregulation of the London financial markets in October 1986, an event oftened referred to as the Big Bang because of the all-or-nothing nature of the deregulation.

I am a novice Wikipedian and have no idea how to go about creating a disambiguation page, or indeed of naming conventions (clearly Big_Bang should by default come to this page).

Suggestions? --DominicSayers 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Name your page something different. A common convention for this problem is to add something in parentheses, so I suggest:

Big Bang (financial)

2. Write your deregulation page.

3. Add this line to the top of the main Big Bang page:

For the London financial deregulation, see Big Bang (financial).

If you look on the "edit this page" version of this discussion, you will see how I made that line look like that. I can't tell you what the punctuation is without directing you to the edit page, because I can hardly see it on this page (with my font anyway). But it shows up fine when editing.

Here is the official Wikipedia help site I used to keep my answer orthodox: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Pages titles with multiple uses need Disambiguation links Art LaPella 20:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Plasma abundance

The Universe is over 99.99% plasma by volume, and over 99% of the visible Universe is plasma. Yet the Big Bang article makes little mention of it. Is this an ommission, or is the current volume of plasma not predicted by the Big Bang? --Iantresman 11:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's really not a part of the Big Bang, per se, though it is associated with standard cosmology. See the article on Epoch of reionization for more details. The detailed radiative transfer/ charge separation processes after the time of last scattering are reserved for other places. This article is long enough. Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If the current 99% volume of plasma in the Universe plays little part in Big Bang cosmology, then that's fine. As for the article being long enough, that would be a poor excuse for relevancy. --Iantresman 16:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It does play little part in cosmology as defined by the Friedman Equations, for example. It is studied in the context of cosmology, but not in the context of the Big Bang (except vis-a-vis the CMB). Joshuaschroeder 16:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That's good enough to me. --Iantresman 16:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

this article is highly unscientific

exactly how would this theory be the beginning of the universe anyways? If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, where the hell did the matter come from to begin with? and secondly

you cant just say that matter came from nothingness, thats an act of god which is UNSCIENTIFIC to say the least

Just because the big bang is wrong doesnt mean all you atheist have to believe in creationism, come up with somthing better than some "scietific myth"

the second law of thermodynamics, which i might add is VERY scientific and is one of the most highly regarded scientific laws ever...states that everything over time goes to chaos... so how do you propose that chaos from the beginning goes into more chaos? that makes no sense, and if a theory doesnt line up with the laws of themordynamics, im sorry, but its just plain wrong. The big bang (and evolution) are the EXACT opposite of the laws of thermodynamics stating that over time chaos turns to order WHICH is exactly the opposite as stated in the laws of thermodynamics

I might also add that the reason string theory was even created in the first place, was because the equations for the big bang didnt work... but oh yeah they forgot to tell you that didnt they???

this is the most foolish scientific theory ive heard, right next to evolution, hahahhaha notice that they are THEORIES and that already stated scientific fact and law dispute the evidence of these theories, but these facts are ignored...

ignroance is bliss people...ignornace is bliss....but that doesnt mean it should be tolerated..

make a better theory and come back to me. --Chimaster 16:52, 4 November 2005

Debating you might be a mistake, but briefly, the people here have thought thru this stuff and have answers that are probably beyond you. You might debate us more effectively if you learned more about what we believe. You could start by studying what entropy means in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's a calculation, not a subjective perception of disorder. Art LaPella 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Dark Matter "Widely Accepted"

I would strongly disagree with the article's claim that dark matter is a widely accepted view. For me, 'widely accepted' means about 90% or greater belief. Unless someone can provide a link or prove otherwise, I think this should be rephrased.the1physicist 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Virtually any link that is about physical cosmology and isn't connected to non-standard cosmologies will let you know. For example, [1]. The question really needs to be thrown back at you, why do you doubt that it is 90% or greater "belief"? Joshuaschroeder 23:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons I think dark matter isn't widely accepted is that physics (and science in general for that ..um.. matter) is much bigger than cosmology. That is, dark matter isn't really necessary to explain things in any other discipline. (Personally, I think dark matter is a hack, but then again who am I?) At the moment, I don't have any hard evidence to back up my claim. However, I am confident that if I did some research, I could support it, but I'm busy enough as it is (hence the slow reply). Plus, one little line in a wikipedia article isn't *that* big of a deal. Perhaps we could change it to say it is widely accepted among cosmologists?the1physicist 15:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I chose the word "belief" randomly. It meant nothing.the1physicist 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to meet a physicist at a major research institution who was critical of dark matter while being familiar with the many forms of evidence for it. Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How big was the universe at t=0?

• According to the Big Bang Theory, we can conclude from Earth the observable universe was once the size of a grapefruit. In theory, so could an observer who is now 10,20,40 billion light years away from Earth. That observer could also infer a grapefruit sized universe in her distant past. I take this quote from Scientific American, March 2005 p.40 "Thus, we can conceive of the early universe as a pile of overlapping grapfruits that stretches infinitely in all directions. Correspondingly, the idea that the big bang was 'small' is misleading. The totality of space could be infinite. Shrink an infinite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infinite.
• I stress this point because the article on the Big Bang does nothing to alert the reader to the possibility that the early universe as primeval atom was larger than the observable universe is today.

--john 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the simplest versions of the Big Bang theory, we can conclude that all of the universe, observable and non-observable, was once a singularity. In particular, if the equations of general relativity are taken at face value, it is inevitable that the Hubble expansion started from such a point (shown via a time-reversal of the proof that collapse past a certain point results in a singularity).

In practice, we can't backtrack past the point where we'd expect quantum gravity effects to be important. This is probably where the "grapefruit" statement came from in the Scientific American article. Please also bear in mind that Scientific American isn't infallible (I say that as someone who's been reading it for more than two decades). --Christopher Thomas 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Edward L. Wright. [2] "The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point." If that is correct, why should there be only one point of origin for the universe observed from different locations? --john 10:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement made in that FAQ, while not strictly incorrect, is misleading. The expansion of the universe from the big bang singularity is a time-reversal of the _formation_ of a black hole. When the star forming a black hole collapses past a certain density threshold, the light-cones of all material in it point entirely inwards, so collapse to a singularity is inevitable even though the matter is not yet a singularity. One of the earliest results derived about the big bang was that if general relativity is a complete description of how gravity behaves, then if the early universe was ever past a certain density threshold, then the only geometry of spacetime consistent with general relativity is one in which the universe - all of it - originated at a single point. This is what the "extending through all of space" comment refers to, though I'd argue that it's poorly worded. The "singularity extending through all time" comment refers to a black hole's singularity's worldline _after_ formation. It would make sense to use this comparison if I was trying to say that the big bang acted as a white hole, but that's not what was shown. --Christopher Thomas 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If general relativity is the core reason for thinking all of the universe, observable and non-observable, originated from a single point, then we should be able to draw some conclusion about the non-observable universe. Is it finite or infinite? If general relativity doesn't answer that question then (in my mind) it can't resolve the issue I raised about size at t=0. --john 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary conclusion that can be drawn from a pure GR model is that the rest of the universe should be expanding just as the observable universe is. A secondary conclusion is that we should expect the distribution of matter in both the observable and unobservable parts of the universe to be roughly uniform on large scales. Surveys of very distant parts of the observable universe have been consistent with these predictions. These surveys are still quite active, as any deviation from a GR-only model's predictions will teach us something about how the forces behaved close to unification energies (which we can't test in the laboratory). Surveys of the non-observable universe will have to wait a while (and may not be possible at all; if dark energy or a cosmological constant exists, parts of the universe that are now observable will cease to be observable, as opposed to the other way around). As for size, you can construct both bounded and unbounded topologies of spacetime that will satisfy the equations, so this isn't a question that can be used to test the model. The simplest solutions have an unbounded universe, but there are active studies looking for artifacts in the microwave background that would result from it being bounded. For the time being, these studies have had inconclusive results. --Christopher Thomas 00:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at balance

I have introduced some "critics say.." to give this article just a semblance of balance. It will be interesting to see if big bang proponents erase everything or actually try to engage in a scientfic debate. If they erase everything, it will be good evidence that they no longer have any scientfic arguments on thier side.Elerner 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place for debate. You can include your comments on the nonstandard cosmology page. We report the objections on the page given their notability. Joshuaschroeder 14:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a vehicle for scientific debate. The point is to "represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view." Your view is definitely in the minority, and certainly deserves to be in the encyclopedia, as it is. There is a substantial paragraph at "Features, Issues and Problems" mentioning some of the existing problems with the big bang. You may also want to see etiquette. Making your edit with the purpose of goading people into reverting it, while you will obtain the desired result, is not constructive. –Joke137 15:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

“This is not the place for debate” says Joshua, implying that the big bang is beyond debate. But it is very much being debated and the article should reflect it. Did you see the July 2 cover of New Scientist, which had a wreckers’ ball descending on the big bang?

My point is that big bang proponents are not interested in scientific truth but in repressing views that challenge their careers. That is why you eliminate factual corrections rather than replying to them. That is why you continually attempt to deface the article on plasma cosmology. That is why some of you hide behind anonymity. Big bang defenders have the same attitude towards scientific debate as the Chinese government does to political debate—repress it, don’t reply to it.

For those who are curious, here are the changes that I attempted to make in the big bang article. I gather it is not possible to erase them here.

“While the theory is widely supported, critics of the theory contend that its predictions have been contradicted by observations in many significant ways.

Critics of the theory, however, point out that there is no experimental evidence for any process that produces an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. In particle accelerators, matter and antimatter are always produced in exactly equal amounts. If such equal amounts of matter and antimatter existed at high density, they would have annihilated each other during the expansion, leaving behind a very dilute universe. Thus, critics contend, the big bang theory, combined with observed physical laws, produces a universe that is billions of times less dense than that observed.

Again the notion of dark matter has been sharply criticized by some physicists, who point out that laboratory searches for such dark matter particles have given only negative results for the past 25 years.

The necessity for big bang theorists to introduce an unobserved type of matter (dark matter) and an unobserved type of energy (dark energy) to resolve contradictions between the big bang theory and observation has been compared by critics of the theory to the epicycles introduced by Ptolemy to resolve problems with the heliocentric model of the solar system. The big bang theory predicts that surface brightness, brightness divided by apparent surface area, decreases as (z+1)^-3, where z is redshift. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But recent observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the big bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.

However many observers pointed out that the anisotropies in the WMAP data were not random or Guassian, as predicted by inflation. Instead they had strong alignments in the sky--for example with the Local Supercluster of galaxies. Such alginments of the CMB with local features in the universe contradicted the big bang explanation of the CMB.

In addition, in 2005 Richard Lieu and colleagues presented a study of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect of 31 clusters of galaxies. In this effect, CBR from behind the clusters is slightly “shadowed” by hot electrons in the clusters. Lieu showed that the effect for these clusters was at most one quarter of that predicted, strongly implying that most of the CBR radiation originated closer to us than the clusters, as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contraction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CBR originates at extreme distances.

in section on light elements- replacing factually inaccurate statement that there is agreement between BB predictions and observations: However, increasingly accurate measurements of these abundances point to values that are in contradiction with the values predicted by the big bang. In particular, lithium abundances are only one quarter of that predicted by big bang theory, a difference far larger than the uncertainties of lithium measurements. Critics have pointed to this contradiction as another failure of the theory.”

If you have reasons why any of this is not true, state them. Otherwise, they belong in the article. The article as it stand now is not factual, it is a polemic—a one side presentation, with many inaccuracies – of a ongoing debate.Elerner 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I will briefly respond to these, although I emphasize again that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for debate.

1. Very few physicists think the theory has been contradicted.
2. (re: baryogenesis) Fitch and Cronin discovered CP asymmetry in 1962.
3. (re: alignment of CMB) This is contradicted by Slosar and Seljak who state that "as soon as foreground uncertainties are included the evidence for this alignment disappears."
4. (re: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich) The Lieu paper has not been peer-reviewed, so certainly does not belong in the main big bang article.
5. (re: BBN) There is a problem with lithium abundances. They are a little less than 50% low, not 75% as you state. See Steigman. This may be due to astrophysics. There are still large experimental uncertainties. (You may be familiar with the physics joke that 95% of 2σ results are wrong.)

In short, your edits are not backed up by the literature. –Joke137 17:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Lieu paper should be included ... not everything needs to be in peer-review to be put in wikipeida .... read the damn NPOV policy! JDR 22:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read the no original research policy. I agree that not everything in Wikipedia needs to be peer reviewed. But thousands of peer reviewed articles are published about the big bang each year. Since we cannot cite and explain even a hundredth of those on this page, it seems to me that we should apply a high standard of quality to articles we cite. Some articles – especially those making radical, dissenting claims – turn out to be wrong in the peer-review process (and some turn out to be wrong later). Including it seems hasty. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an excitable science tabloid. –Joke137 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Joke137, I have read the damn no original research policy (... as a side note here, why do academics wikipedia editors cite this often? Seems that they are inside thier "ivory tower" fighting off non-journal sourced "barbarians" and "heretics") ... I was here when the policy was formed! Citing sources which have not been published in, according to the academic opinion, the "exclusive" peer review system is not "original" research.

Have you read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy? An acamedic POV is not a NPOV. I am glad that you agree not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals (for example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources).

Your qualification of "But ..." though troubles me. AND I disagree ... applying a "high standard" only furthers the systematic bias within academica. The thousands of peer reviewed articles for academia are published concerning the big bang each year (manytime in support of it) ... though you miss the point, a position not in support of the "true and right" position, does not get published in the peer reviewed journals. Wikipedia should not (as I said elsewhere) foster the systematic bias within academica. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an extension of academia.

"If" and when an articles – those making radical, dissenting claims AND those standard, supportive claims – turns out to be wrong ... wikipedia should note it if it is being cited.

Sincerely, JDR 16:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(PS., Setting aside the "this side is the 'majority'" (as that statement is fallaciously biased by the peer-journals (eg., the gate-keepers)) ... a significant "minority" (eg., a group less than the total "reported" BB proponets) does exist against the "BB myth", and it is easy to name the prominent adherents. Excluding the significant minority views from this article is not a NPOV.)

Why do you think that the current coverage of the minority in the article is inadequate? After all, we have links that can get people to the anti-Big Bang pages here on Wikipedia. --Joshuaschroeder 13:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually most physicists think the Big Bang has become a joke. Cosmologists and particle physicists are themselves a small minority of all physicists. I note that you had nothing to say to the surface brigthness work. The rest of your remarks are not worth replying to until you tell us who you are. I personally doubt that you are a physicist.Elerner 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I only know a handful of the world's physicists, of course, but they are fairly well distributed amongst astrophysicists and astronomers, cosmologists, particle physicists, plasma physicists, nuclear physicists, atomic physicists and even some biophysicists and condensed matter physicists. They also seem to be relatively well distributed amongst theorists, experimentalists and observers. I have yet to meet any who doubt the big bang, which is not to say that I don't think they exist, just that they're in the minority.

I have nothing to say about the surface brightness work, because I don't know anything about it and a lot of astrophysics is outside of my competence. Joshuaschroeder seems to know more about that than me.

I will not tell you who I am. Feel free to attribute any nefarious motives to that you like. You can doubt I am a physicist if you like. I don't care. I never made any representations of being a physicist. All I ask is that the Wikipedia community judge me by my substantial record of editing general relativity, cosmology and particle physics related articles. That attitude has been quite successful until now. –Joke137 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice ... but doesn't help in being noted as being an "expert" in anything .... Any who doubt the big bang, which is not to say that I don't think they exist, just that they're in the minority? I would suppose that there are more ... but within academia, there is a reinforcement of certian people's beliefs (a <sarcasm> "''self-correcting''" </sarcasm> communitity; it's hard to get published if you don't "tow the line") ... if you state a non-mainstream position, your are labeled "fringe" or a "crank" by various pseudoskeptics. So, there are probably more than your would suppose .... JDR 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. But it is not the business of Wikipedia to try to counter systematic bias within academica. Rather it is to report things as they are, without trying to systematically advance any viewpoint. –Joke137 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Report things as they are? Then the differing views would be mentioned without trying to systematically advance any viewpoint. Just because an editor "believes" that one group is in the minority, doesn't mean that they are ... if you qualify the statement with "in academia", you'd be reporting more factually. JDR 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A further comment (after thinking about it last night), Wikipedia should not foster the systematic bias within academica (this goes to the heart of "differing views would be mentioned"). I would hope that you would agree with that. JDR 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You agree that academia supports the Big Bang: score one for the Big Bang. You state non-academic sources disagree: that might score a point if you could list them and tell us what non-academic credentials they have. Art LaPella 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some in academia supports the Big Bang ... others do not (mabey less than those that support it, but with the "systematic bias within academica" (as Joke137 seems to acknowledge) it would be hard to truely find out). I also state that state non-academic sources agree with the Big Bang (for a variety of reasons). _Don't misrepresent what I said_, LaPella, thanks. Sincerely, JDR 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept your clarification of what you meant. Perhaps a similar misunderstanding will explain how you seem to have missed my main point. Readers of Wikipedia want to know what everybody thinks, not just us. Reading on down the page, you mentioned 3 academic Big Bang critics, but your heart is in emphasizing non-academic Big Bang critics. Who are they? I hope they're convincing - I would love to discover that the Big Bang is as politically correct as the social "sciences". Art LaPella 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"The rest of your remarks are not worth replying to until you tell us who you are. I personally doubt that you are a physicist." Eric Lerner, no Wikipedian is under any obligation to identify himself or herself to you. If you choose to shift the debate toward the participants' credibility instead of the points they make, I suspect you will find few people here willing to continue the discussion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bull ... Wikipedian can identify himself or herself a person if they want to be recognized as a "expert". There is no obligation ... but then that editor's expertise is questionable, too. A participants' credibility does, though, go to the points they make, but (I do agree) that the point that are made are the most important thing. JDR 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and all I said was that no one is under any obligation. Refusal to address someone's claims because they refuse to tell you their name is about as childish and unproductive as saying, "I personally doubt that you are a physicist." —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When someone asks a question and they "refuse to tell you their name", position, or background and they do not answer (avoid the questions) isn't part of Wikiquette, eg., "Don't ignore questions". "Refusal to address someone's claims" when they are asked a question of themselves when you yourself have stated who you are isn't "childish" ... it's "treating others as you would have them treat you". The act of "Argue facts, not personalities" though does seem to have been ignored. Sincerely, JDR 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A quick check of Google can find you critiques of Dr. Lerner's claims from bona fide experts (example: [3], from Prof. Wright at UCLA). However, a better place to discuss this is probably over at Talk:Plasma cosmology. --Christopher Thomas 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ned Wright's bias (aka., POV) is plainly seen as a proponent of the Big Bang. The page you reference is under "Cosmological fads and fallacies" ... though he doesn't list the Big bang itself? .... not a very neutral source, citable but highly biased. Ned himself is wrong also though at times concerning position he disfavors (an example is pointed out by people such as F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, and J.V. Narlikar), so I wouldn't put too much into his opinions. Sincerely, JDR 16:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As an astronomer who has worked at many different observatories around the world, I can assert that in the astronomy community there are very few people who disagree with the Big Bang theory. In my personal experience of the physics community as a whole, every person I have met who disagrees with the Big Bang theory has turned out not to understand the evidence supporting the theory. As far as F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, and J.V. Narlikar are concerned, it is probably not helpful to your cause JDR to bring these people up. Hoyle in particular was quietly considered (later in his life) to be an embarrassment by many in the Institute of Astronomy, and people were releaved when he (and his flu viruses from space theories) were relocated to Wales. Unfortunately every astronomer receives hundreds of emails a year from lunatics who claim to have disproved the Big Bang theory (usually people who have no qualifications in physics at all, and usually not making any sense at all), so there is a tendency for astronomers to reject all such theories as just more "spam". This is, admittedly, not ideal in terms of scientific practice, but astronomers just don't have time to read hundreds of emails. Rnt20 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion and personal experience. It may be that the people you have not met tell you what they believe ... or, with those that have told you, you may have misuderstood thier position (I wasn't there so I can't make that jusdgement). To impinge the F. Hoyle's character, though, isn't helpful .... and this wasn't just him but G. Burbidge and J.V. Narlikar also. I also don't have a "cause", just stating neutrality should be observed and the proponents can be wrong as the critics can .... (and historically, the BB proponents were as wrong as everyone else when the CMB was measured ... but the BB proponents changed thier equation as did the other "good" theories ... but then the BB proponents "declared" victory. ...) Sincerely, JDR

Sorry, I should have said -- I never actually met Fred Hoyle and was merely reporting what astronomers had said to me (and you can't always believe what you hear of course!). I know the Fred Hoyle made plenty of very important contributions to astronomy, particularly earlier in his career, and added a lot to the great cosmological debates of the 1960s. Rnt20 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The good news here is that the discussion has suddenly turned toward counting well-known supporters and dissenters, not trying to decide the Big Bang for ourselves. That is my understanding of the Wikipedian ideal way to decide how much attention should be given to a minority opinion. Art LaPella 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The point about anonymity is not about credentials. If someone claims to be an expert, they need to say who they are, so that their record can be judged by others. Joke137 identified himself on his profile page as ‘a competent cosmologist’, so that is why I asked that he identify himself. Now we know he is not a cosmologist at all, since he says he is no physicist and all cosmologists are physicists—it’s a branch of astrophysics. Fine, then it is irrelevant who he is. But he should not claim an expertise he does not have.

The article as it stands does the reader a disservice because it states things that are just not true and because it portrays a field that is controversial as non-controversial. A controversy over the big bang is being widely reported in the press, --New Scientist, BBC, elsewhere. There are scientific conferences about it. To say there can be no discussion of that debate nor any mention of what critics say is wrong with theory means the article is deceptive—it is disinformation, not information.

The self-appointed guardians of this article even admit that they don’t know anything about some of what I have posted—such as the surface brightness data—yet they remove it anyway. That is hardly NPOV.Elerner 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"To say there can be no discussion of that debate nor any mention of what critics say is wrong with theory means the article is deceptive…" — I don't see anyone refusing to discuss it here. I just see people who do not wish to identify themselves. That's how Wikipedia operates. If you'd like to discuss your concerns with other editors "offline", so to speak, there are other options. For example, I believe most registered Wikipedians allow you to send emails to a registered account (just go to a user page and look for the relevant link). —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot my user page even says that. You can see [4] that I have never even edited the user page. I suppose Joshuaschroeder got tired of seeing the red link on my name. Eric, I never claimed not to be a physicist, however. My point is that it doesn't matter who I am. I am not interested in making arguments from authority. What matters is that I am able to constructively discuss changes to a page and use the scientific literature to improve it.

I agree that there are people who disagree with the big bang, and think that dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation are Ptolemaic edificies. They published an article in the New Scientist, had a conference in Portugal, and write scientific papers. Their theories belong on Wikipedia. They are mentioned in the article. However, the scientific consensus in the academy is still overwhelmingly in favor of the big bang model and framing the whole article in a tentative way would be as much POV-pushing as not mentioning them at all.

I removed the surface brightness reference because it was not from a peer-reviewed journal and given the other disagreements I had with your changes, it seemed likely that that was suspect as well. I have also seen Joshuaschroeder's disagreement about this and know something about how hard it is to do comparisons at different redshifts from my knowledge of the systematics of Type Ia supernovae. I'd have thought it would be admirable that I admit I am out of my depth on one of your points.

You and the other editors can see my willingness to engage in constructive discussion – within the framework of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR – on here and on Talk:Plasma cosmology. It is not me who is preventing a consensus being formed. –Joke137 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Joke137, your understanding of WP:NPOV is not non-selective in what that entails and your adherance to WP:NOR is not neutral. Keeping a academic POV and only allowing "peer-reviewed material" prevents consensus being formed. Sincerely, JDR 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It’s late, so I will make this short. The surface brightness paper was in a peer-reviewed proceedings. The lithium papers are all peer-reviewed. I see absolutely no willingness on your part or Joshua’s to allow anything on this page that contradicts the big bang. That is so not NPOV it is absurd.Elerner 04:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The surface brightness paper is not peer reviewed. Any reviewer would point out that there is a simple alternative explanation involving galaxy evolution from early times to late times. The utility of surface brightness comparisons for ruling out the Robertson-Walker metric is certainly in principle possible, but you have to have a confirmed standard candle which Lerner has not demonstarted he has. As I said on the plasma cosmology page, though, I am not the reviewer of Lerner's paper. I defer to Joke's reference for the lithium paper. Joshuaschroeder 06:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because you say something does not make it true, Joshua. There’s also reality. My paper was peer-reviewed as part of the proceedings. It is a requirement for all American Institute of Physics proceedings. If you had read the paper, or even the paragraph you deleted, you would realize why you are wrong about evolution. The data demonstrate that if you assume that evolution exactly compensated for the BB-predicted dimming, the surface brightness of the high-z galaxies would be more than an order of magnitude brighter than the brightest observed low-z galaxies, including very young ones. Indeed such extreme surface brightness appears to be physically impossible in the UV, because dust absorption limits it. Also, if you believe evolution accounts of this, you have to believe it is just an amazing coincidence that the data exactly supports constant surface brightness.

Models continue to be discussed accounting for surface brightness evolution and selection effects in HST. [5]. Joshuaschroeder 13:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that the proceedings have been published yet, but I do see that (at least some, but perhaps all) AIP proceedings are peer reviewed. –Joke137 04:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see much justification for the edit summary "revert to more balanced article, since objections scientifically unsound", since I actually made an effort to respond to some of the points you added, to which you responded by attacking my lack of credentials. –Joke137 04:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As for Rnt20, he or she should state their name. Otherwise, we can assume that the claim to be an astronomer is just boasting. If you want a list of astronomers who doubt the big bang, just try www.cosmologystatement.org. As the statement says, there are many more that in fact doubt this theory, but are afraid to say so.Elerner 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)