Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology

Untitled

Whoa! This article is a bit short eh? Do we even need it? Does it qualify for Wiktionary?

Shanekorte 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup intro

Check out the difference [1].

You'll note that User:Reddi, subject to his ways, decides that cleaning up spelling, grammar, and syntax is not to be kept. I ask him to explain himself on the talkpage.

--Joshuaschroeder 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not feed the trolls". JDR 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reddi for more details on the kind of conduct that Reddi is engaging in as above. --Joshuaschroeder 17:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to NPOV intro

While Reddi continues his campaign to rid Wikipedia of my edits, I will continue to ask him to explain his reasoning for changing my edits here. --Joshuaschroeder 18:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased and factually incorrect

See, for example, Ned Wright's critique of Quasi-steady state which is fairly damaging. The advocates haven't been honest or forthright in their advocacy and we need to make sure the readers know this. --ScienceApologist 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link? --James S. 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link --ScienceApologist 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still biased. It makes grandiose claims about physics and cosmology (and the qss model itself) that are not substantiated by the references. --ScienceApologist 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which claims, in particular, do you refer? --James S. 16:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points of bias

I have highlighted the points where I see the bias in this article:

The idea relied on the Machian theory of gravity first as a foundational element in the theory. -- this is not neutral point of view. There is no "Machian theory of gravity", there is only a postule of Mach's that extends the kinematic invariance of GR into dynamical invariance. It is controversial to claim that this is a theory of gravity or that it can really be "foundational" to anything more than idle speculation.

This claim has been removed. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A foundational element is that the origin of inertia is intimately tied with a long range scalar interaction between matter and matter. -- see criticism above, but this sentence is even more problematical. Not only is there no indication from the qss papers quoted that such is the case, it isn't clear from the papers that such a view of inertia is required even assuming Narlikar has a point.

This is a factual accuracy dispute, not an allegation of bias. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R Sachs, J V Narlikar and F Hoyle researched and arrived at the exact solutions of the basic equations that gave simple homogeneous and isotropic models (such as in The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Analytical Solutions of Field Equations and Their Relations to Observations ^[2]). -- definitely biased. The homogeneity and isotropy posited were for a particular view of the universe: namely one that did not have a higher density -- points that seem to be in contradiction with the observation of a CMB associated with a higher-density universe. Any way you cut it, this sentence is biased against the major measurements of homogeneity and isotropy in the Big Bang which is the CMB.

It is clear from definitions that QSS includes and in not necessarily distinguisable from big bang cosmology; therefore any claims of big bang cosmology are attributable to QSS as well. This is not, therefore, a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the critism offered by Ned Wright for why this doesn't work. QSS does not subsume Big Bang predictions -- they make different owns according to their own papers. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The production of light nuclei have been researched by F Hoyle, G Burbidge and J V Narlikar ^[3] and by Burbidge and Hoyle ^[4]. -- Highly debatable. While the reference does deal with nucleosynthesis, it doesn't address the full spectrum of nucleosynthesis observations.

As above, QSS includes big bang cosmology, so this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced discussion is different than Big Bang nucleosynthesis, so this is valid. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The process of structure formation was achievable through a "toy model" (by Ali Nayeri, Sunu Engineer, J. V. Narlikar, and F. Hoyle) and may offer a viable choice to the "standard" hot big bang cosmology. ^[5] -- Come on. How can someone claim that a "toy model" can be a viable "choice" (is that supposed to be "alternative")? If you cannot see the bias here, I don't know how to begin a conversation.

This is a content accuracy questions, and seems to be supported. Is there any evidence that it is not in the cited reference? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is bias claiming that it is a "viable choice". --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With recent evidence indicating that the universe is accelerating, the quasi-steady state had previously predicted the universe would be accelerating. ^[6] -- This is not verifiable through the reference given. It is wholly a fabrication as far as I can tell. (See also, Ned Wright's criticism of this point).

Again, since QSS includes big bang cosmology, this is not a valid dispute. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to include a cite to back up your contention. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A group of researchers commented on the details of an alternative mechanism of the generation and maintenance of anisotropic Planckian radiation background. ^[7] The theory has been developed to incorporate the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and other astronomical observations. -- Biased because it doesn't illustrate the absolute limited extent to which this idea has been attempted and how it has failed miserably on a few different fronts (including isotropy -- see above).

Citation by over 30 peer reviewed publications is not "absolutly limited" because the number of citations continue to grow (by the way, try Thompson's Science Citation Index for better coverage than the free web services.) --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 publications about qss's interpretation of the CMB? This is plain false. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quasi-steady state concept claims that the radiation as diffuse starlight has been absorbed and emitted continually by objects in space, but critics have pointed out that such radiation would not be as isotropic as what has been interpreted via CMB observations. -- It's worse than just a "critics have pointed out". The COBE measurements in no way correspond with an integrated starlight model which can get isotropy in the most generous models to 10% only.

Because QSS is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology, there is no evidence to support this. As above, it is simply an invalid dispute. A content issue at best, but not bias my any stretch of the imagination. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you haven't shown that qss as developed by Hoyle et al. subsumes the Big Bang. It is biased to portray these statements in such a light. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other aspects of the Universe, especially where the big bang has proved inadequate, -- excuse me, where has the Big Bang "proved inadequate"? Is this supposed to be an example of unbiased reporting?

Are you seriously claiming that big bang is completely consistent and coherent. There are large gaps in big bang cosmology, including issues of dark matter and general accuracy based on the limitations of instruments. This is not bias, it is the plain fact. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang is completely consistent and coherent since it is a scientific theory. Dark matter isn't a "gap" and the advent of precision cosmology has made "instrument limitation" points a fallacy. It is definitely biased to state that the Big Bang has "proved inadequate". By whose reckoning? God's? --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

may be explained at a later time (such as to remove the singular beginning, -- A singular beginning is not necessarily predicted by the big bang. This is plainly incorrect.

Source? --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try any of the extensions beyond the Big Bang including the cyclic universe. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

obviate the problem of accommodating old stellar populations, -- not a problem as determined by consensus (see globular cluster problem on the Big Bang page).

An alternative explanation is hardly bias. This doesn't even qualify as an inaccuracy; it simply states what QSS adherents have stated. That is the purpose of an encyclopedic article. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is no problem with regards to old stellar populations. This is an inaccurate statement. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

derive a model for dark matter, -- as though the Big Bang doesn't have one in Lambda-CDM?

Neither bias nor an inaccuracy. Are you so fundamentalist about the hegemony that any alternative hypotheses are to be bannished from the encyclopedia? You might have a point if it were possible to distinguish this particular alternative from the hegemony you champion. This claim is pathetic. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as currently written seems to claim that the Big Bang doesn't have a model for dark matter. It does. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and develop more fully the true origin of large-scale structure of the cosmos).^[8] -- clearly biased, weasling that there is a "true origin" that present cosmologists are barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

Occam's razor demands that QSS be preferred. The only bias in evidence here is this claim's against QSS. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about Ockham's razor as has been pointed out by numerous editors below. I'm sorry that you fail to see this, but it is a plain and simply fact. "True origin" implies taht QSS is closer than the Big Bang -- an obvious point of bias. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it, the bias problems in the article. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unconvincing. --James S. 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks seem to evince an ignorance of cosmological subjects. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of this part of science, but don't impose your ignorance on the rest of the editors please. And do not continue to remove tags that can attract attention to this horrendous article. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big bang is special N=1 case of QSS

QSS cosmology is not necessarily distinguishable from big bang cosmology. This is clear from first principles: Consider two big bang-like creation events so distant that their light cones do not intersect. Observers in either would, by definition, be unable to distinguish their local single creation event from the two in existence.

Because the confidence interval over the shape of space includes positive (hyperbolic, open), zero (flat, Euclidean, open), and negative (closed) curvatures, the possible existence of open topologies does not allow QSS to be ruled out.

Therefore, big bang cosmology is a special, N=1 case of quasi-steady state cosmology, and any attempt to claim that QSS is controversial is false on its face, because it includes the N=1 big bang case.

There is no evidence that N<2. Therefore, QSS is a noncontroversial cosmology. Because QSS includes big bang cosmology at N=1, therefore QSS is also a notable cosmology, and should be treated as such. --James S. 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that N>1, and therefore, by Occam's Razor, the simplest case of N=1 is preferred. Any claim to the contrary, if provided without evidence, is controversial. --Carnildo 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's razor is on the contrary position, because a unique N=1 is a more complicated idea than the thought than simply N>0. If an event happens exactly once, it requires an additional complicating reason that it is limited to one time only, because all other manifestations of physics allow multiple similar events to occur. The fact that an event being limited to one unique instance only is more complicated means that Occam's razor supports QSS. --James S. 08:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, what you are describing isn't exactly a qss but may be closer to a multiverse or a m-brane hypothesis. --ScienceApologist 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse cosmology includes the "many worlds" of quantum physics, so I would agree with that if the Terrestrial Planet Finder hadn't just been abandoned. I think QSS is more well defined. I also think it has been more formally developed, as a cosmology in the large instead of a cosmology and a state machine to go along with it. However, I am inclined to agree. --James S. 17:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks are rather cryptic, I'm not sure what you think that the TPF has to do with any of this, but QSS as you are envisioning it is another version of different "domains" or "brane collisions" resulting in separate "big bangs" for different parts of the "total universe". This type of speculation of quantum cosmology is not part of the standard base of scientific inquiry and it certainly isn't qss as envisioned by Hoyle or Narlikar. --ScienceApologist 23:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sounds more like the cyclic model than the QSS model. You'll notice that the cyclic model is not on Template:Cosmology. –Joke 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? "two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes [which] collide periodically in a higher dimensional space" has nothing to do with observers in one or more big bang creation events in the same open space. If you have any actual reasons that the cyclic model is at all applicable to qss cosmology, then please state them. --James S. 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was applicable to QSS. I said it was applicable to your fatuous N=1 argument. In particular, may I suggest you have a look at [9], section 8. Or Richard Chase Tolman's oscillatory universe. This idea is not unique to QSS, that is my point. –Joke 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the N=1 vs. N>0 argument is fatuous? Do you think there is a way for observers within big bang and QSS cosmologies to distinguish between them? --James S. 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because if the QSSC were just the same as the big bang, then the theory would be unfalsfiable (or, rather, the two would be the same theory, we additional unnecessary philosophical apparatus on QSSC). That is what I thought was fatuous. The fact is that the QSS model gives a different origin for the CMB and the light elements, so it is, in principle falsifiable (and most would argue that it has already been falsified). –Joke 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QSSC is not "just the same" as a unitary big bang, it is similar, and the degree of similarity depends on the relative distance of creation event(s). I don't think you are using the word "fatuous" according to its definition. The light elements are only different to the degree that the creation events have had intersecting light cones, and even then, the extent that they would change nucleic abundance ratios is completely variable. We do not know whether distant quasars are creation events from colapsed "big crunch" events, or something else. Saying that something is "in principle falsifiable" simply because it depends on something else which you assume is exactly N=1 true, even though you only have evidence that N>0, is wrong. --James S. 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James' edits

James, your edits go well-beyond your points about N>0 and do some very inappropriate things to the article including removing the dispute tag without addressing the concerns above, removing the point about Machian gravity even though there is a reference to is, and adding in what seems to be your own opinion about QSS being a more general case of the Big Bang. Verifiability demands that you show us a citation to a source that claims what you are saying, so I ask you to do that now rather than revert. --ScienceApologist 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A source would be any person capable of deducing from first principles that QSSC includes big bang cosmology because observers within either are unable to distinguish between the two and because Occam's razor demands the simpler N>0 case when there is no evidence that the more precise N=1 is more accurate. That is a truth from thought experiment alone. I can not believe that I am the only person to recognize this obvious truth, but I do not have a peer-reviewed citation yet.

There has been no evidence presented that my deduction is incorrect, and I agree to look for a peer-reviewed source. --James S. 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unless you have a source, your suggestion qualifies as original research. Find a source and we'll find a way to report about it on the page. The standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia isn't whether someone can present evidence that your deduction is incorrect but rather whether there is a source for your information. This is policy of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you admit, then, that you have no arguments against the deduction other than that it may be original? --James S. 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I do or do not admit is irrelvant. You need to back up and read the policies linked to above. I am perfectly willing to include material that is backed up by verifiable sources. That's the way writing the encyclopedia works. This is not the appropriate forum for presenting arguments about various points Against the Mainstream. Try the Universe Today messageboard if that's what you want to do. --ScienceApologist 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further references are unnecessary for facts which clearly follow from already-cited references including the definitions of the cosmologies. No evidence has been presented to the contrary, and there is no evidence that anyone can not easily see how the inclusion of big bang within the less precise and indistinguishable QSS logically and plainly follows from their definitions which are already supported by sources. --James S. 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then it should be very easy for you to point to one of the references which state that the Big Bang is a special case of qss. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disputed tag

Both the POV of the article (see above comments) and the factual accuracy (see above comments) is disputed. Please resolve the issues by modified the disputed prose listed two sections above. Do not remove the tag otherwise. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that there are any remaining POV issues; those listed above are simple content accuracy disputes, not allegations of bias. I will continue to include a more user-friendly, explanatory tag. It is sad when a reputable researcher's adherence to hegemony puts him the the unenviable position of arguing against simple logic, trying to claim that existing citations of definitions are insufficient for basic deductions from the facts they plainly state. --James S. 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a dispute going on as we are having a discussion. Do not remove the tag again. --ScienceApologist 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{POV}} tag, because the treatment is balanced, with neither a preponderance for or against. Occam's razor provides great certainty that the notability must be at least that of big bang cosmology's. None of the recent inflationary scenarios I've seen published suggests that N must be 1. --James S. 02:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the tag as you have failed to once again answer the criticisms here. --ScienceApologist 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What issues of bias (not fact) do you believe exist in the article as it is now? --James S. 10:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Points of bias. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you mixed in factual disputes with allegations of bias. I responded to all of the allegations of bias, and there are none which you have since replied to. Therefore I am removing the tag -- again. If you put it back, please enumerate the remaining bias problems which you believe remain below. Even if any remain, I remind you that you have heavily edited the article, and your opinion of the worthlessness of the cosmology is quite apparent. I am most interested in what you believe is so far opposed to your point of view that it renders the article biased. --James S. 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do your own redaction. Bias remains, and it is important that it is removed from the article. If you would like a specific example, I will provide it. --ScienceApologist 07:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Also why did you remove, "QSS proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers' to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation."? --James S. 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"this is factual, verifiable, undisputed"

Really? The only Grigori Slepak I found on Google is a graduating senior in Florida. Art LaPella 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to re-insert the cosmic iron whiskers paragraph, not the vandalism. Fixed. --James S. 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic iron whiskers

Since such things have never been observed, we need to describe what the proposal actually is (that is, an attempt to cover the backside of people who are pathologically skeptical of the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kiding; that's about as biased as anyone could possibly get. Why don't you just edit Heaven to explain that it's an attempt to repress the fear of death? Sure, it may be, but saying so is very much your point of view. Until there is evidence one way or another, it is an alternative hypothesis. Or do you have a source saying it's a backside-covering attempt?

The description I added is neutral: "Quasi-steady state proponents have proposed 'cosmic iron whiskers,' condensing out of iron ejected from supernovae, to explain the isotropic microwave background radiation." with a reference including the URL.

Also, when the cosmology template and another fixed width template such as {{POV}} are side-by-side, they overlap in narrow windows because they are both fixed width. --James S. 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to explain cosmic iron whiskers in terms of QSS as an idea based on no observations. But the wording you proposed was preposterously in violation of NPOV. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no claim that such iron is not falsifable, and because based on the local amount of metal, I see no evidence that such 'whiskers' could not represent the well known "dark matter" required to explain Hubble constant observations (last I read, it was 73% unexplained), I am removing the "pseudophysics" category, by definition. I am using this account because I am logged in to a for-pay station, and for other usual reasons, as has often been suggested by those with whom I have interacted in the past. Sorry if this has been inconvenient, but this is the 2nd-place cosmological theory after the big bang, and if the scientific method is to be expected to operate, competing theories are required. JamesAgain 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any justification for restoring this article to the cosmology template. In order for a theory to be called scientific, it does not need competitors. It merely needs to be falsifiable (see Karl Popper). You merely need to be able to prove it wrong. The big bang has passed all the tests we've found, so far, although the idea has changed with the introduction of dark matter, dark energy and inflation. However, each of these new entitites has had multiple opportunities for falsification. In particular, with inflation, the prediction of a nearly-scale invariant spectrum of primordial perturbations has been exactly borne out, as confirmed by WMAP, SDSS and other experiments. The others, too, have multiple independent sources of experimental confirmation.

As for the suggestion that the big bang is a "special case" of the QSS cosmology, this is absurd. The QSS cosmology introduces matter creation and an unobserved c-field to account for matter creation at each "bang". These are not features of the big bang cosmology. Occam's razor still applies – just because a baroque theory is equivalent to a simple theory in some limit (which I doubt is the case here) doesn't mean the baroque theory is preferred because it is "more general." Otherwise instead of general relativity we would believe in Brans-Dicke theory in which it so happens that

\omega >40,000

. –Joke 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format Change

Can I suggest that the entire format be changed? I know it's a drastic suggestion, but this Wiki entry is an eyesore, it's but a bunch of cites. It reads like an appendix, not an introduction. This is suppose to educate readers of QSS, not bore them to death with just footnotes. :( FResearcher 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, be aware that the sea of citations resulted from total edit war between mainstream scientists and minority opinions, and that each hotly disputed idea and sub-idea needed a citation. Any major change is likely to set off the war all over again, on this page and on other cosmology pages. Art LaPella 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed

This article has been merged to steady state theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.90.96 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]