Talk:Non-standard cosmology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

creationist cosmologies are simply non-standard?

Does creationist cosmologies really classifies as "non-standard"? Don´t know, I think that there are roughly three main categories: the mainstream, non-standard, and plain crackpots. Sometimes with blurry distinctions. But putting creationist cosmologies side by side with scientific non-standard seems to me something like in a article about disease, citing the (standard) germ theory of disease, those people (non-standard) who emphasise other bodily conditions than biological infection, almost as a prerequisite for the latter, side by side with ideas about diseses being demoniac curses. --Extremophile 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. How do you distinguish between the mainstream, non-standard, and plain crackpots? We could argue about peer-review as being a criteria: but some of the ideas listed are a bit nebulous. For example, plasma cosmology is what I would deem "limited" peer-reviewed. There

are parts of it that are peer-reviewed and there are parts of it that are undeveloped or reviewed by non-cosmologists. I like your disease analogy and would like to run with it, but I'm not sure what criteria are used there to distinguish between those "feel good" or "holistic" self-help gurus and faith healers. The borders are nebulous and while I think it's clear that self-creation cosmology is more rigorous and closer to the mainstream than c-decay, I don't know whether it is actionable to try to make clearer categorical distinctions. But please, suggestions are always welcome! --ScienceApologist 20:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Extremophile and the analogy of demoniac curses. Don't let creationism sneak in as merely non-standard, but still scientific. That is the aim of the creationists' "wedge" strategy, I guess. Leibniz 13:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I still didn't think of any clear criteria of of distinction, I'll research a bit more and see if I can think of one. --Extremophile 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it should just be cut. I mean, the page on Quantum electrodynamics, to pick a random example, does not go to any length arguing that "Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that electricity was created by God". Leibniz 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Creationist views have no place here as people's affiliation and beliefs are irrelevent. What people write about in peer reviewed papers is what counts, at least according to the scientific method. As far as I can tell, the only reasoning for mentioning Creationists, is a cheap attempt to smear unpopular views. Wikipedia policy on "No personal attacks" tells us specifically that such an example of a personal attack is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It's funny how you don't see creationist views mentioned in mainstream articles like the Big Bang... heck, you don't even see critical views. --Iantresman 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I find myself in the peculiar position of having to defend the creationists. What is the definition of a "nonstandard cosmology"? I think the answer is: a cosmological framework that is outside the mainstream. We are explicitly including here arguments that are outside of science so comparing this page to science pages is problematic. It's not like quantum electrodynamics, the germ theory of disease, or the big bang. It's a collection of ideas that are opposed to the scientific mainstream. As such, there are no criteria for exclusion and the only criteria for inclusion are that the idea must be opposed to mainstream science. --71.57.90.3 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fortunately we don't need to speculate on the answer. The scientific method is "debated" in the pages of peer reviewed journals, and summarised in academic books. While there are tens of thousands of references to "cosmology" [1], there appears to be just TWO on "cosmology" and "creationsism"[2], neither of which is peer reviewed.

As far as I can tell these two are on ways of debunking creationism in cosmology so they don't count neither. Jim 07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• So you may well argue the case based on your own personal opinion, but it is verifiable that "creationism" is not considered anything to do with cosmology, and shouldn't be included in any scientific articles. --Iantresman 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Missed the point. This is not a page about science so peer review doesn't count for anything. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If mythical stories count as science, one should also include the Bantu cosmology: Mbombo, the white giant ruled over this chaos. One day, he felt a terrible pain in his stomach, and vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars. Every bit as valid as Creation Science. Leibniz 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a cite for a Bantu who uses their cosmology to discount the standard scientific models then, absolutely, we should include this as a nonstandard cosmology per the definition. I have yet to see someone using Bantu cosmology to do the same. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but you'll need to verify your proposal if such is the case. This page isn't about science nor is it about mythology, it's about describing the ideas of those who dispute the scientific consensus on cosmology. Creationists actively dispute the scientific consensus which makes their ideas worthy of inclusion. Bantus as far as I can tell do not. Incidentally, I've been looking at resources involving New Age commnetators who dispute part of standard cosmology. This might be a legitimate bit to include, but so far in combing the sources, it seems that most New Agers enthusiastically embrace standard cosmology. --ScienceApologist 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since you put Creationist views EXCLUSIVELY into controversial science articles, such as this one on Non-standard cosmology, and Redshift quantization, and science related articles that you clearly don't like, such as the Electric Universe, and, you have actively REMOVED all mention of Creationist views from science article you consider respectable, such as Redshift[3], I think you're demonstrating double standards in your editing, and a deviation from the neutral editing
• And since you will accept second-rate citations for controversial articles, from Web sites to personal blogs, and will often throw out information from "respectable" articles that are often supported by DOZENS of peer-reviwed citations, again, double standards are clearly apparent.
• In other words, I think that your explanation lacks any credibility --Iantresman 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those articles you cite are not "science-related" but are rather written to describe POVs that attack the scientific consensus. There is a big difference, one that you routinely ignore. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• CRAP. Aside from the Electric Universe article, the controversial articles are subjects all developed through peer review. If you take your own advice, you'll find that "[Scientific] Consensus is normally achieved through ... peer review" and not through your personal opinion.
• If the subjects are so poor, why don't you submit some critical reviews to peer-review rather than discuss the merits of New Age commentators. --Iantresman 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to submit critical reviews: see WP:NOR. Peer review is part of scientific consensus, but just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean that the subject is part of scientific consensus. Peer review certainly isn't a criteria for inclusion here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is helpful, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability applies to articles as a whole, not the facts within them, which are subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability -- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth .. published by a reliable source .. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs.." --Iantresman 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing the definition of nonstandard cosmologies to eliminate the creationists

This particular article is summarizing notable nonstandard cosmologies: that is cosmologies that specifically target standard scientific cosmology and claim it is wrong. There are plenty of other cosmologies that do not fit into this category: biblical cosmology, Hindu cosmology, esoteric cosmology, etc. All the cosmologies mentioned on this page, however, do fit into this. Unless we want to change the given definition of nonstandard cosmologies, I do not see the point of arguing for the exclusion of creationist cosmologies here. They attack the scientific consensus just as all the other nonstanard cosmologies do.

That said, if consensus demanded it, we could make this a page about non-standard naturalistic cosmologies which would effectively eliminate creationist cosmologies from consideration. This would require making it clear that in order for a nonstandard cosmology to be included on this page it must necessarily be materialistic and not involve appeal to the supernatural. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. But why all this special pleading about the supernatural? The article already is in the category physical cosmology, the intro clearly sets up a scientific context etc. Leibniz 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Physical cosmology is a debatable category for this topic, to be sure. In any case, the character of creationist cosmologies is that they serve as (fringe or pseudo-) scientific models which conform to the desired assumptions of the Young Earth Creationists. It is the claim of creationists that the inherent uncertainty in science is so democratically accessible that they can develop theories consistent with observation which accomodate their beliefs. This, in a very real sense, is an appeal to "physicality" even while they fundamentally reject "naturalism". Interestingly, plasma cosmology, qss, and intrinsic redshift advocates also claim the scientific accomodation by inherent uncertainty. They make their models fit the "observations" just as the creationist do, having their own reasons for wanting space to not expand, the universe to be infinitely old, etc. In particular, there are a number of nonstandard cosmology advocates who are rabidly atheistic in that they dislike the Lemaitre accomodation of special creation afforded by a singularity that "came into being without cause" (even though this idea is now understood to be based on conjecture rather than scientific evidence). The only real difference between the creationist cosmologies and the other nonstandard cosmologies is the reason why the cosmologies were developed in the first place. Substantively, in terms of the claims of concordance with observations, creationist cosmologies are just as good (or bad) as the other nonstandard cosmologies in terms of how they fit the "physical" observations. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on Cosmology already has subsections for Metaphysical, Religious and Esoteric cosmologies. This leaves Non-standard cosmology (or Alternative cosmologies as it is more usually called) to cover alternative scientific cosmologies. --Iantresman 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The scientific legitimacy of alternative cosmologies is debatable. What isn't debatable is all but the creationist cosmologies are based on naturalistic assumptions. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The scientific legitimacy of ANY cosmology is debatable. If you were a Creationist, then you'd consider creationist cosmologies to be based on naturalistic assumptions --Iantresman 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1) You really ought to research before you comment. In particular, the rejection of naturalism is one of the core ideas spouted by creationists. 2) Just because you cannot distinguish between mainstream proposals and nonmainstream proposals in your own mind does not give you the right to impose this confusion on Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Creationism and naturalism. I am well aware of mainstream and nonmainstream ideas, I just don't consider the latter to be automatically wrong or pseudoscientific, and will give both categories equal respect and standards --Iantresman 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion grew. I personally think that the article should be about scientific non-standard cosmologies, rather than biased "theories" aiming to support fundamentalism. It just makes the whole thing more neatly organized, rather than you having articles that count at the same time in science, pseudo-science, fringe-science and religion/mythology categories. But since seems to not be a consensus whether the article should be about nonstandard cosmologies in a scientific or a broader approach, what about at least making two subcategories in the menu, scientific nonstandard and religious fundamentalist nonstandard? Perhaps with general explanations of each, before the items. --Extremophile 18:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article on Creationist cosmologies. I can find no reliable source in which "non-standard cosmologies" includes Creationists views. --Iantresman 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, if an author of a nonstandard cosmology cites as their motivation a form of creationism, then you can use that primary source as a reliable description of the non-standard cosmology's perspective. E.g. Humphreys or Gentry. --ScienceApologist 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the original poster. I think what Extremophile was getting at is that alternatives to the Big Bang consensus (e.g. Plasma cosmology, MOND, Steady State and so on) are all cosmologies that adhere to (or aim to adhere to) the scientific method. In theory at least, they are all falsifiable and live or die by observational tests; debating whether they are in fact dead or alive, currently or historically, is beside the point. Religious or mythological cosmologies are unscientific since they appeal to the supernatural, which is by definition unfalsifiable. Without getting too engrossed in the philosophy of science, falsifiability is a required criterion for a theory to be considered "scientific", not whether or not it is true (which it can be argued is impossible to determine anyway) or even most widely-believed. Jon 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely understand this distinction, but it is a bit difficult to demarcate where alternatives that are based on the scientific method end and where alternatives that are not based on the scientific method begin. Since the authors of the various creationist cosmologies would claim that their frameworks use the scientific method, it would be our word against theirs that their frameworks necessitate an unfalsifiable condition. I don't think it likely that you will find a source which adequately distinguishes between naturalistic and non-naturalistic alternative cosmologies based on the scientific method or falsifiability. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the intro to Intelligent Design - it gives a quote that clearly rules out ID as science and the first few paragraphs of the Creationism article illustrate how holders of these views reject the scientific method. Lumping non standard scientific based cosmology with supernatural based answers is blurring these separate issues and comes across as an attempt to discredit them by association. They may be completely wacky and wrong but if they have had some peer review, are not based on "God did it" and are attempting to explain the often inexplicable (by current cosmologies) deep sky observations then they should not be tarred with the ID brush.

This is a bit of a red herring. We aren't discussing Intelligent Design or Creationism here, but we are discussing Creation Science's creationist cosmologies. There is a difference. I agree with your evaluation of creationism, but the distinction between creationist cosmologies and other nonstandard cosmologies is only in the realm of the acceptance of supernatural assumptions -- and it isn't clear that these assumptions are directly appealed to in creationist cosmologies. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In many religious traditions, creationism is the active promotion of an origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole were created by a supreme being or by another deity's supernatural intervention, usually in addition to or specifically opposed to scientific consensus on origins.

Taken from the Creationism article - anything proposing a model for the origin of the universe is a cosmology. As for the appeal to the supernatural look at both articles you linked and they both say these are attempts to reconcile observations with biblical accounts of the creation of the universe. The bible squarely attributes the creation of everything to God so yes it is clear that they appeal to the supernatural.

I agree with all you wrote. Does that mean that creationist cosmologies must be excluded from this page? --ScienceApologist 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussing naturalistic and theistic cosmologies on an equal footing in any article blurs the distinction for the lay man and should be avoided as they are vastly different things as I can tell you are fully aware. As a separate article already exists for Creationist cosmologies then this article should address the more imaginative :) theories of the wider (ie fringe) scientific community. Just one person's vehemently anti ID perspective that I'm throwing in the pot.

Granted. However, it is very difficult to say that the work of, for example, Van Flandern, is any more rigorous than the work of Humphreys. I don't think it is becoming to exclude people's wacky and wild proposals on the sole basis that they are making them for religious reasons. Such exclusion smacks of a preference for fringe/pseudoscience that isn't religious based. To the scientist, anything that is not mainstream is subject to the same critique: it doesn't explain the data as well as the mainstream. This goes for plasma cosmology as well as white hole cosmology. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So why do creation cosmologies have their own article? This is not about scientific rigour or bias. Neither I nor any of the astronomers I know would ever expect to find theistic cosmologies in an article on non-standard models.

Creationist cosmologies have their own article for the same reason that nonstandard cosmologies have their own article: it's a topic of notable interest that has been researched and reported on in Wikipedia as per the mission of this particular enterprise.

Articles on "non-standard models" are hard to come by in terms of neutral reviewers. Certainly, I don't think the organizers of the last "alternative cosmology" conference would have excluded Robert Gentry if he wanted to present his model at their conference. There was no requirement in their literature that one had to have an alternative that was purely naturalistic. In terms of framework science, there is little to indicate what makes a nonstandard cosmology "expected" or "unexpected" in an article that, frankly, is about people who reject the scientific concensus in favor of their own pet paradigm. What we can reasonably exclude are ideas that take explicitly non-material, non-physical paradigmatic forms -- that is those ideas which describe an esotericism or a supernatural framework that is independent of the material components of the universe and are therefore "unphysical" do not belong in this article. What we cannot meaningfully exclude are ideas that explicitly take material form, even if they use assumptions which are less material. For example, when a plasma cosmology advocate clambors for recognition, they routinely use very unmechanisitc appeals to the mutually agreed-upon amount of plasma in space to persuade others that their idea is correct. This is no different in a philosophy of science than a creationist arguing that their physical model deserves respect because many cultures have the concept of a deity in their cultural narratives. Both of these supporting items are irrelevant to the cosmologies themselves, if you are a physicist or a cosmologist you don't care about some irrelevant foundation fact that does not directly influence the particular physical model you are considering. What the creationist cosmologies as well as the other non-standard cosmologies all have in common is that they are an attempt to describe the physical universe using different paradigmatic approaches. Where these paradigms arise is not relevant to the fact that they are all framework fringe/proto/pseudo-sciences. --ScienceApologist 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Really Joshua, how long are we going to have to put up with your sloppy thinking? You know full well that MOND/Plasma/QSSC/whatever are all based in physics, irrespective of how speculative or maverick you think they are. Trying to seriously claim that any of their proponents are using religious, cultural, or supernatural beliefs as their starting points, much less imply that they would admit creationists or theologians to their conferences, is outrageous. I know you are not an idiot, but I do notice that your reasoning becomes sloppy when you see yourself fighting some sort of ideological crusade. In this case, you appear to want to make alternatives to the Big Bang look worse than they might appear, by lumping them with Creationists. The Big Bang is a big grown-up now, and should stand up by itself without you having to spike its opponents' drinks. Jon 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By their very nature creationist cosmologies are not falsifiable (omnipotent beings can do anything). Even the wackiest science based cosmology passes this one. 86.138.58.85 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon and anonymous user miss my points. Inasmuch the cosmologies outlined on creationist cosmologies are material proposals, they are subject to the same analysis as any other nonstandard proposal. Creationist cosmologies are based on the same physics that all the other nonstandard cosmologies are based on (by the way, MOND is not a nonstandard cosmology). If anyone has any resources about nonstandard cosmologies specifically excluding Humpreys, Gentry, or even Setterfield, let me know. Right now, all people are doing is foaming at the mouth without any evidence. --ScienceApologist 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Some more foam. Read the article with fresh eyes and you will see the creationist cosmologies (the first in the list!) come out of nowhere. The previous paragraphs talk about cosmologists/astronomers/theoretical physicists etc formulating proposals before and concurrent with the BB theory, or seeing problems with the BB that they have tried to address. This is a whole different matter to reading a book which you think God wrote and seeing problems with the current cosmological theories that cause awkward questions. I have never seen creationist and non-standard cosmologies lumped together as we have here. I would almost class this as OR. 86.138.58.85 17:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And now some data

Google search of "non standard cosmology" [4] - approx 5,000 hits -some wikipedia mirrors.

Google search of "non standard cosmology" "young earth" [5] - sweet FA except for wikipedia mirrors.

Google search of "non standard cosmology" "old earth" [6] - sweet FA except wikipedia mirrors.

Google search of "non standard cosmology" "creationism" [7] - sweet FA except for wikipedia mirrors and articles on continuous creation and self creation cosmologies.

The required exemption from publications required by ScienceApologist will never be found as cosmologists don't consider creation cosmologies worth considering or debating. They are pseudoscience and as such fall out of the science arena completely - except for this wikipedia article. Hmmmm. 86.138.58.85 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

None of this addresses the point that the umbrella term "nonstandard cosmologies" really just refers to physical models that contradict the scientific consensus. And yes, the creationist cosmologies (have you read the page?) are physical models in the sense that they offer physical (albeit incorrect) explanations of phenomena in our universe. Since it is arguable whether many of the advocates for various nonstandard cosmologies on this page can be considered "cosmologists" at all, there is little to the argument that the other non-creationist cosmologies represent something more in-tune with the scientific consensus than the creationist cosmologies. Many (but not all) of the individuals mentioned on this page have strained if not non-existent relationships with the scientific community. Public comments from mainstream cosmologists about most of the suggestions on this page are as, if not more, disparaging than their public comments on creationism -- and are similarly superficial since most career scientists don't prefer to waste their time with the detail ramblings of cranks and dead-ends whether said crank is that way for religious or any other pathological reason. --ScienceApologist 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have shown above that "non standard cosmology" is a specific term that relates to fringe scientific theories. This term has no common usage linking it to creationist theories except in this article. You have effectively redefined what "non standard cosmology "means. An encyclopedia is supposed to report not grind personal axes. Sophia 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have shown nothing of the sort. "Non standard cosmology" is only a specfic term inasmuch as "standard cosmology" is considered to be something like "classical cosmology" according to a cosmological constant equal to zero. In this sense, Lambda-CDM is a "non standard cosmology", but that isn't the terminology consensus has dictated here. The "nonstandard" nature of the cosmologies mentioned is defined in the article and creationist cosmologies fit the bill. I see no references except to arbitrary google searches which just show that people can use "quotes" to whittle away search results. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about some peer reviewed citations, showing any mention of creation science with "non-standard cosmologies" (or the more usual term, "Alternative cosologies"). --Iantresman 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

When ideas are not in the scientific mainstream, peer review is pretty much beside the point. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotes used were to refine the search - not exclude pertinent links. Quite honestly if this article is to be a rag bag collection of wacko theories, creationist ideas and historical theories superseded by observations then it has no real value and should be deleted. It represents a collection of ideas that would never normally be lumped under the same roof and as such is non encyclopedic. Sophia 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad description: "rag bag collection", and feel free to nominate it for deletion. There is an impulse at Wikipedia to categorize, list, and sometimes even create root articles. It is an editorial decision to have articles that carry certain umbrella themes. In this case, the argument probably is that often "alternative cosmologies" get discussed as a group. For example, Ned Wright talks about Cosmological Fads and Fantasies and has a shorter but similar rag bag. --ScienceApologist 14:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Stop filling this article with the rubbish that you use to discredit it, then it won't need to be deleted. Your tactics are poisonous and thoroughly reprehensible. I'm reporting this. Jon 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationist ideas [citation needed]

Can someone provide a citation indicating that Creationist ideas are considered a "Non-standard cosmology". All the books and papers I've seen do not mention them. --Iantresman 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo that call for verification of what I regard as a unique classification. Sophia 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's one reference: [8]

Here's another: [9]

Here's a lumping of creationist cosmologies with other nonstandard folks: [10]

Take your pick of the references, it's all there.

--ScienceApologist 17:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for three references that show the creationists trying to align themselves with the physics community. Now can we have the reference where anyone other than a creationist blog with a "wedge strategy" to fulfill does this? Sophia 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your skepticism, but in reality what we have in the second instance is an evaluation of a creationist cosmology by an Old Earth Creationist as an alternative cosmology. Ross at reasons.org shows the problems with Humphries' cosmology and critiques it in the same fashion as a nonstandard cosmology is critiqued by, for example, Ned Wright. By the way, Ned Wright tacitly endorses Hugh Ross's treatment. --ScienceApologist 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

None of these appear to be peer reviwed, which would seem desirable for a scientific article. Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources suggests that we should:

• "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications"[11]
• "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."[12]
• Even "arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published,"[13]

While the Creationsts may consider their ideas to be "non standard cosmologies", I still can't find any peer reviewed sources which considered Creationists cosmologies with non-standard cosmologies, see for example, Non-standard cosmologies (1980) Narlikar, J. V., et al, does not mention Creationist cosmologies.

--Iantresman 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Dis)"Respecting Scientists"

The standard for inclusion in this article is not peer review because there is no accepted standard for this subject discussed in the scientific community. This is admitted by the nonstandard proponents themselves who whined about it in their own open letter. Therefore to require the peer review approbation of a subject that is ignored by respecting scientists is not in keeping with the tenor and style that can be verifiably attributed to this article. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if we used Ian's review article by Narlikar as a standard, we would have to totally exclude and rewrite most of the article as the non-standard cosmologies of 1980 are very different from the non-standard cosmologies of today. In 1980, Linde hadn't developed inflation, the error bars on the Hubble Constant were on the order of 10s of km/s/Mpc, the CMB hadn't been precisely measured. There was no such thing as "plasma cosmology" as out article on the subject outlines it, the quasar controversies were not resolved, and there were still steady-staters hanging around hoping for integrated starlight to work. Using out-of-date reviews doesn't serve as a decent standard for inclusion. Narlikar could not get such a review published today as the controversy is over as far as the community is concerned. --ScienceApologist 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is utter crap. The standard for science is peer review, and for you to suggest that there is no standard for alternative cosmologies is a fantasy. The Open Letter to the Scientific Community [14] criticised peer-review (as have dozens of other scientists), and says nothing about the scientific standards of alternative cosmologies.

To say that non-standard cosmologies "is ignored by respecting scientists", is incredible arrogance... who the hell do you think you to decide the respectability of these scientsist.

The subjects mentioned in the article are all subject to peer review sources... EXCEPT Creationism, which is not even MENTIONED by ANY peer reviewed sources.

• "The Quasi-steady state" is peer reviwed [15]
• "Tired light" is peer reviwed [16]
• Narlikar is peer reviewed [17]
• Vashni is peer reviewed [18]
• Arp is peer reviwed [19]
• Alfvén is peer reviwed [20]

YOU may not consider alternative cosmologies to be not up to standard, and YOU may have no respect for peer reviewed scientists who research non-standard cosmologies. But YOU are not peer reviewed, and your opnions are not verifiable and worth squat. --Iantresman 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Ian, what you are dealing with here is not a science apologist but a religious zealot of something, he thinks is science, but is just as closed and narrow as the medieval church. The non-standard theories are to be, in some sense, the standard, just as big bang theory was whacky when it first came on the scene.Lucas

It is debatable whether any of these proposals repersent real "science". I certainly would dispute any suggestion of this in the article. Ian may think they're science, but, as he's fond of letting us all know, he's not qualified to make that judgement. Again, the issue here is not peer review because we're dealing with suggestions that are explicitly opposed to community consensus. I'd also point out that Humphries claims that his work has been peer reviewed as well, so marginalizing him according to his perspective would be unwarranted. As far as I can tell, people want to exclude creationist cosmologies from this page because they are of the opinion that they "should" be excluded, but while I've provided resources showing that they are often considered side-by-side with other nonstandard cosmologies, none of the people wishing to exclude creationist cosmologies has any reference that would lead me to believe excluding creationist opinions is a verifiable or reliable endeavor. --ScienceApologist 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It may well be debatable, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Whether either one of us considers these citations to be "real science" or not, IS IRRELEVENT. That these papers have been PEER REVIEWED tells us that they meet the necessary scientific standards.
• These scientists do NOT oppose the "scientific community"; they are diverse views WITHIN the scientific community.
• The only people who consisder that creationist cosmologies should be considered side by side with non-standard cosmologies, are (a) Creationists (b) You, ScienceApologist. Neither are considered a Reliable source.
• That you don't apply this same argument to "mainstream" science articles demonstrates your double standards. --Iantresman 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are promoting an opinion that your heroes are WITHIN the scientific community. This is easily disputed by, for example, the open letter. You are falsely claiming that having a peer review article means you are "in" the scientific community. This is not a sufficient criteria. If we want to include only points that can be backed up with peer review articles, should we decide which journals represent peer review standards of the scientific community? After all, Humphries claims his model was "peer reviewed". The problem is that WP:NPOV ties our hands with respect to evaluating who is and isn't "in". We can verifiably report what the mainstream and standard model is, but once we take that step into the nonstandard domains, the standard for inclusion is not at all clear. There is a double standard at work and that is that an article written about "non-standard" work necessarily includes everything that is not the "standard" work. It's a double standard in the syntax and logic of polar categorization. Not P is defined as "anything but P". It's not "anything but P that still has certain other properties".

I should point out that for all your complaining, you have yet to provide a set of references that we should go by when determining what to include in this article except for an outdate article from 1980 and a vague appeal to peer review that still doesn't eliminate the creationists because they claim to have peer review. I encourage you to give us a reference to go by as it would be nice to see this article be less of a "rag bag".

--ScienceApologist 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• A layman might assume that "Non-standard cosmologies" refers to cosmologies that are "not standard". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to tell us. The NASA Astrophysics Data System is one such source of citations, and it is not too difficult to find mention of "Alternative cosmologies", or your preferred term, "Non-standard cosmologies". And creationsts cosmologies are not mentioned in ANY of these references. --Iantresman 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• "which journals represent peer review standards of the scientific community"? Agaoin, we can either check with the NASA Astrophysics Data System for peer reviewed sources, or we can check with the great ScienceApologist... will you leave your phone number so readers can double check with you.
• You may not consider Arp, Narlika, Vashni, etc to be part of the scientific community, nor even Hoyle, Zwicky, and Alfvén. Are you going to telephone their Universities and break the news? --Iantresman 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your favorite tactic of linking to ADSABS searches for a preferred term, but these searches don't provide a consistent query for a clearinghouse of alternative/non-standard cosmologies. References by people who are critiquing non-standard cosmologies don't mention any list as such and would offer the same value-free critique of Humphries' model as they would for Narlikar's. I see no indication that these groups are excluding Humphries model any more than any other. I'd point out that there are other cosmologies discussed on this page that are not mentioned in "any of these references" either. The standard for inclusion in this article is that the cosmology be "nonstandard". It's not that it be mentioned in a random search executed by Ian Tresman. Your approach to this and all other controversies is, frankly, to declare that you are persecuted by me which, if true, should be taken to dispute resolution.

You've also lost sight of our discussion. You were the one who brought up peer review as a standard for inclusion in this article, not me. I suggested you develop a standard for which peer review journals to include and which to exclude. From your vitriolic comments, I think you are saying that you want ADSABS searchable abstracts to be the standard for peer review inclusion, but ADSABS searches also include non-peer reviewed abstracts and proceedings so that isn't a response to my request. We still don't have an adequate consensus-based definition for what constitutes a reliable and verifiable source for this page. I maintain that any nonstandard cosmology can appear here. I admit that this may not be the best standard, but no one is working with me to try to come up with a consistent standard that can be applied to candidate theories to determine whether they should be included here or not. I even offered an option that no one seemed to eager to develop ("naturalistic cosmologies").

Your last comment gives me another idea: maybe this page should include only non-standard cosmologies from people who are at universities. That would make Arp, Varshni, and Narlikar the only ones who qualify as far as I can tell. Lerner and plasma cosmology would have to be removed since those people are affiliated with laboratories and not universities. Tired light models would also have to be dismissed for want of a supporter affiliated with a university. This, I think, is a poor criteria. The floor is open for suggestions.

--ScienceApologist 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

Tommy Mandel 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you go to the NASA ADS search form, and scroll down to the section called "Filters", there is an option to require "All refereed articles". The main search form allows us to search for keywords, eg. "Alternative Cosmology"
• We can search for peer reviewed (ie. refereed) articles on any subject. You will find "tired light", "stead state theory", etc, but NOTHING on creationist cosmologies.
• As for restricting ideas to people at Universities, perhaps we should consider ruling out Communists, gays, Jews and niggers too. --Iantresman 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to provide my input, as a person who has been outside this flame war. First, everyone "ganging up" on a single individual not only does nothing to improve the article (which is the point of talk pages, and not debate or the flame war going on right now) but it also takes our collective energy away from finding good sources for the article, especially when we have an article whose title is so loaded with connotation that it bears a high responsibility to have good, verifiable sources to support its claims - as an encyclopedic article. The editor above asks a good question: what is the criteria for non-standard cosmology to which we can hold this article? I have an idea: if we look at the main Cosmology article we see the various physical, metaphysical, and religious cosmologies described. To prevent creating a duplicate article here, I would offer the idea that this article should only cover physical cosmologies that are not the big-bang, since the big-bang is considered the standard by the consensus of scientists, and since metaphysical and religious cosmologies are already covered in that article.

To this end, for the topics given in the article fitting this criteria it bears noting that peer-review is only one aspect of a good citation for a claim in a WP encyclopedic article. According to WP policiy if you cite a source, peer-reviewed paper, etc. then that paper must be accessible, and its conclusions must reflect the claims made in the article. That is verifiability. Also, databases such as the arXiv are not peer-reviewed research journals, and while there is an ability to have peer review within the NASA ADS database this engine will find papers that conflict with each other, that are no longer available, and some that even conflict with the laws of physics - only a handful of the total papers accessible on ADS ABS are actually peer-reviewed and of those which pose "non-standard" theses the majority rest upon computer simulations or Bayesian statistics in which the priors are assumed on conditions that can be non-physical, are not supported by observation, or are not supported by physics. Further still, it seems that the "what scientists support which theory" club is being used to hit everyone over the head instead of us looking at the sources themselves used in these WP articles. Our goal should be the integrity of an article. So based upon the sources cited in the above debate, how much integrity does the article have?

Let's look at this closer and consider the ramifications for this article then. I've gone through every paper at each of the links given above in these discussions and here's what the "sources" state:

• for the Quasi-Steady State sources the majority of the papers use computer simulations (the article should therefore reflect this - no observations used for these papers... simulations only), other papers assume parts of their conclusion before the rest of their model is fit to the data (these assumptions should be reflected in the article), and other articles are no longer available (i.e. not verifiable and so cannot be used in a WP article) - in fact only one paper here actually satisfies the WP verifiability condition and supports the thesis of the claims in the article. That's for the QSS sources.
• About tired light: only one of the two resources is still available - the other should be tossed since it is not verifiable. The other source here not only admits that observations as old as 1996 refute a key assumption they're making but the August 2006 discovery of dark matter also presents problems for the substance of that journal article. So it may have been peer reviewed but more recent, and even past, research renders an important facet of their model suspect. If that's the only peer-reviewed source we can find for "tired light" then that section of the article does not stand on solid scientific ground as a viable non-standard cosmology. Onward...
• Narlikar's work stands on better ground than some of these other resources but many of the papers ref'd in that link are not available and hence not verifiable - the link to a simple search list of all of Narlikar's work is therefore inappropriate if we are to adhere to WP policy for citations. Next, it bears mentioning (and the article should reflect) that a large proportion of Narlikar's work and re-interpretations of accepted physical cosmology require the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO and LISA. LIGO has yet to detect a gravitational wave and LISA isn't even scheduled to launch until 2011 so the article should reflect that these papers draw conclusions not from observation but from models alone. In most of the rest of his papers, he reinterprets Big Bang cosmology within the framework of QSS, and the ADS ABS refereed papers on QSS, as described above, are based upon computer simulations. This is all fine, and scientists have to start somewhere, but the article should reflect that these ideas here depend upon computer simulations and reinterpretations of laws of physics where in contrast the standard or accepted cosmologies rest now upon years of observation.
• Vashni's single paper ref'd above has two problems: 1) he makes an assumption on page 6 that is refuted by modern observations - the Universe is indeed anisotropic and not isotropic, and 2) he makes a statement on page 8 upon which his thesis hinges that is directly forbidden by Special Relativity - there are no preferred reference frames in the Universe and in fact the results in his paper would be the same if we took his data from the Earth, or Mars, or Proxima Centauri. So Vashni's single paper ref'd above is reliable if we ignore modern experiments and the laws of relativity. This WP article should reflect accurately the character of this source.
• Arp's research presents a body of work with perhaps more integrity than most of his contemporaries in that he has numerous observations to support his hypotheses, perhaps explaining why his non-cosmological redshift idea has garnered him so much support. Of the references given for Arp, the science and the Bayesian- and frequency- statistical relevance of his data is debated among his peers (which should be addressed in the article), but his work is peer-reviewed in several scholarly journals for a reason. He makes testable hypotheses. These sources are verifiable.
• Alfven has presented a large body of work in several journals in which he reinterprets cosmology through his own personal interpretation of electromagnetism. The article should reflect this as well. It took me a long time to go through all of the papers referenced in the link above but it should be noted that in many of them approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of his research references are to himself. This is not a total taboo in science but it is not encouraged that scientists cite their own research as support for their own research. The article should reflect this perspective in some way.
• I'm not sure what verifiable sources a person would cite for "creation cosmologies" since they are religious and not scientific, and they should not be included in this article anyway since creation cosmologies and other religious or metaphysical cosmologies are already part of the main Cosmology article.

At the very least there are some thoughts to consider, from a perspective outside of the recent debates on this page, and rather than debate individuals' viewpoints, I'm targeting how we can improve the accuracy and integrity of this article, one of the more controversial that Wikipedia has. Should we maybe put this article up for a WP Peer Review? My concern is solely with the quality and accuracy of WP articles and maybe a peer review would help with that. And it should be noted that I am neither a supporter, nor an opponent, of any of these cosmologies here. I'm speaking solely as an editor. Just some things to think about. Cheers, Astrobayes 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The "flame war" as you described it, was soley about whether we should include "creation cosmologies" in the article. It was argued that they should not, because there are no reliable souces, and certainly no peer reviewed sources. You seem to have come to the same conclusion for exactly the same reasons. --Iantresman 08:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Science apologist is very adept at removing evidence that does not support the Big Poof Theory, and then embroiling the other editors in meaningless arguments about semantics. He tried to include creationism, not to broaden the field of discussion, but to associate all the non poof theories with the religious creation. He is very clever this way but not at all smart. He is a big bang, er, big poof supporter and goes to great length to disrupt any discussion that does not support the big poof theory. So whenever you see evidence go poof, you can bet that SA is behind it. The entire big poof theory is based on the ASSUMPTION that redshift is a Doppler effect. But Hubble himself did not believe it. Yet Hubbles significant belief, which is in the literature does not appear in any of the cosmology articles. It does not even appear in the Hubble article. SA says it is nonsence. But "nonsence" is a violation of NPOV which states, as a reminder

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

Amazing that Hubble's view can be deleted by SA and he gets away with it. No wonder my colleagues refuse to edit here...Tommy Mandel 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Mandel 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference article or pulp-fiction?

This whole page consists of various people trying to convince ScienceApologist that the inclusion of creationist cosmologies is imaginative and without precedent in the scientific world. Thinking about things further I think this may be the root of the problem. Looked at from the scientific communities perspective this article is an anomoly. However from a man in the street view, (particularly USA - Europe really doesn't give a rat's-ass about creationism as it's seen clearly as the realm of religion) this article represents the sort of views pushed by his pastor on a Sunday, or one of the fly-by stories that your average glossy mag would push.

The data we are working from as far as I can tell is that "non-standard cosmology" is a scientifically understood term even if it is not explicitly defined. In the scientific world these are recognised as fringe theories - some slightly wacky and some trying a new approach to solve old problems. Some may eventually come in from the cold but even if they don't, this small scale diversity of research is acknowledged as part of a healthy scientific process

There have been no references provided so far that show recognition of creationism as a non-standard cosmology other than USA based creationist sites.

So.....are we writing a reference article or are we giving a "USA centric man in the street view" of this subject? Unless it's the former, I give up and will go away. Sophia 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect your desire to present a "scientifically understood term", but it is simply not clear that such an amalgamation exists. In particular, there doesn't seem to be any outside judge for what constitutes a nonstandard cosmology that explicitly excludes the creationists while including everything else we list on this page. I am simply not convinced that anyone has presented any verifiable evidence that there is someone who excludes creationist suggestions when building a clearinghouse of nonstandard suggestions. No one has presented, to date, any evidence that creationist cosmologies are marginalized in the (non-)community of nonstandard cosmology supporters. You have an interesting "accomodationist" spin on why the community "tolerates" fringe opinions, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Perhaps you can point me to a reference that details this sort of toleration with regards to this subject. Otherwise, I'm afraid your promotion reads a lot like original research or worse, your own private opinion. --ScienceApologist 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's late and I'm tired but here are three refs showing the academic "tolerance" of non standard cosmology researchers [21] [22] [23]. Please note that in the UK both Sheffield and Cardiff Uni astronomy departments are well respected. I could find more but anyone seaching the internet will quickly find two things: 1) "non standard" or "alternative" cosmology is a recognised term within the astrophysic/astronomy community, and 2) that the only people who consider creationists cosmologies as "non standard" in the scientifically recognised sense are the creationists themselves.

I don't know what else to say to convince SA - I'm not spinning anything, just trying to share my experience of the field. I was at the Royal Astronomical Society meeting when Fred Hoyle presented his paper on panspermia. He was given a very rough ride as you can imagine but the debate was a scientific one. The RAS would never invite a creation scientist to deliver a lecture for the simple fact that as they call to supernatural solutions their work fails to be science. To qualify as science it must be falsifiable - omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient beings cannot be proven false. However they dress up the "created light" etc - god did the deed and therefore it is not science. SA's constant ignoring of this falsifiability issue baffles me as the significance should be well appreciated by any competent scientist. Even the wackiest science based non-standard cosmology can be falsified. The problem I am having is finding a reference that states explicitly that the scientific community only considers science based non-standard cosmologies as this is so obvious to anyone in the field they don't bother to say so. All I can find is academic cosmology review papers that don't include creationism - not what SA has called for.

For SA to say we will not work with him is saddening as I see the reverse situation. For him to accuse me of OR is a fair point - all I know is I bring 25 years of direct experience of the astronomy/physics community here and I say this article is wrong to include creationist cosmologies. I have talked to other currently active astrophysicists who agree with me. The only fault in all my observations is that they are heavily UK/Europe biased due to my experience. However I have not seen any US academic cosmological reviews that include creationism along with the non-standard cosmologies they do discuss.

From the moving goal posts, the irrelevant links provided by SA to support his view, and his attempts to move this onto more personal ground I can see this is a waste of time. I suspect there is some history between the other players on this page that is imeding progress here and so admit defeat. If I thought more refs would help I would bother but I just know the three I have given above will somehow be found wanting so further time spent here is pointless.

I hoped editing the physics articles would not carry the same baggage as the religious ones I previously spent a lot of time with but I was wrong. Sophia 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a long acrimonious history with ScienceApologist, on similar issues. For example:

• The inclusion of the creation science viewpoint in the article on "Redshift quantisation", again based on the evidence of a few creation science web sites.
• The removal of nearly all discussion on "non-Cosmological" redshifts, in the article on "Redshift", especially the new Wolf effect mechanism --Iantresman 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if you think the ideas are mad or misguided the distinction between science and faith based research should be obvious to any competent science editor. I'm amazed this has turned into the battle that it has which is why I'm giving it a break. I fully support referenced/reliable sourced arrticles but the only other time I've come across this level of dogma, blurring the issue and disparity of references required compared to the ones provided is on the religious articles. I haven't got the time to play thise games anymore. Sophia 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't blame you. I think you will find that there are many other scientific articles where such edit wars do not go on, I think you have just been unlucky in choosing this one. --Iantresman 10:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions on how to proceed

I think that Astrobayes and Sophia have moved to points that are closer to the issues at hand. I wish Ian would join us, but I'm not holding my breath.

We need to have a consistent definition for non-standard cosmologies. Sophia has pointed out three well-known European researchers who study Machian, tired-light, and quasi-steady state theories respectively. Sophia rightly points out that these researchers are in the community (though fringe science perhaps) and Russell Humphries is not. However, I think this distinction occurs due to the valued and storied history of non-standard cosmologies. After all, the steady state theory is remembered as being the best of competitors to the Big Bang while it was running and inspired some of the best research possible into cosmology in the middle of the twentieth century. The history of non-standard cosmologies therefore give us a way to separate the wheat from the chaff by evaluating which ideas were tolerated and politely discussed by the community and which ideas represent novel "outside usurpers".

What we have then is a proposal to treat this subject as historical rather than active. That's not to say that we shouldn't point out that there are still researchers who support non-standard cosmologies, only to say that, verifiably, non-standard cosmologies were more important in the past than today. This is very easy to verify. Each of the researchers Sophia mentioned has stopped publishing on the subject for the most part or at best publish on the subject only through alternative journals. For example, Wickramasinghe, the panspermist pupil of Hoyle, still maintains a hold onto steady-state idealizations and I imagine supports Narlikar, but doesn't actively publish his research into cosmology anymore. Why should he? He's a luminary and well-respected in other sub-disciplines. Through the 25-years of Sophia's dealing with non-standard cosmology supporters undoubtably the treatment and general acceptance level of the subject has change, there is something missing from the article about what has happened to the field since COBE and WMAP. Indeed, the Open Letter is a rather tortured attempt to deal with this issue, but it doesn't provide us with the guidelines we seek, I'm afraid.

Since non-standard cosmologies today aren't taken as seriously by the astronomical community as they once were, this may mean we should rewrite the article from a history of science standpoint. It would be good for us to desribe the changes that occurred. In the early 1990s Spergel debated Eric Lerner openly before the CMB anistoropies were discovered. Today that wouldn't happen. Such changes in attitude therefore don't take the form of increased criticism of non-standard cosmologies, rather they take the form mostly of (im)polite indifference by the community to the non-standard ideas. Critical commentary and evaluation are all but gone from new attempts to outline non-standard cosmologies. In fact, the term itself has just recently been reportioned in some circles to mean, in part, non-standard "Big Bang" models that contradict ΛCDM. Those who dispute the four "Big Bang" features that are seen at the top of this article have either gone silent or have been marginalized to the extent now that the subject does not have the stature it had even 15 years ago.

When subjects lose stature, they necessarily go through definitional transformations. The current article isn't (yet) a historical piece on alternatives to the Big Bang. However, I would support this article going in that direction. I think such an article might be more in line with what Sophia is describing and would lend itself to a research article rather than a pulp-fiction piece. The way such an article would have to be recast would be to illustrate the historical toleration and the current rejection of non-standard ideas in the community. I'd like to see Sophia's input on this matter.

The way the current article is written is much different: the current article takes the tack that non-standard cosmologies are real and present topics that are supported by living and active researchers. While this is true, such a characterization presents us with the condundrum outlined in the few sections above: that "any" cosmology is available for evaluation, not just the ones that are of interest for historical reasons.

I think Astrobayes is going about his evaluations in the correct way. I'm all for the elimination of creationist cosmologies with a recasting of this article in terms of the historical connectedness of non-standard cosmologies to the astrophysical community. I am of the impression that this will satisfy Sophia's suggestions and comments as well as lend itself to verifiable standards that live-up even to Ian's hopes and dream. We would also have a standard for inclusion that would eliminate not only creationist cosmologies, but some of the other "novel" models that get thrown about by single researchers (like the SCC cosmology currently on the page) due to lack of historical context.

So my suggestion is to rewrite this page from this historical context with the following cosmologies included in historical order:

• Milne universes
• Static universes
• Dirac large numbers hypothesis
• DeSitter universes
• tired light universes
• Machian and Brans-Dicke universes.
• Gödel's universe
• steady state and quasi-steady state universes.
• Alfvén universes and ambiplasma
• Halton Arp and William Tifft observational skepticism (redshift quantization and intrinsic redshift)

These are, to my knowledge, the historically important non-standard cosmologies that are out there. I encourage editors to, Wiki-like, edit expand and reorder this list as they see fit. We can then dispense with trying to describe current supporters and instead can describe which supporters are the most prominent in context of their connection to the scientific commnunity. This will mean much more emphasis on steady-state theories and other ideas that were once popular but now abandonded due to thorough falsifications.

Please comment on my suggestion here.

--ScienceApologist 13:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looks fine by me, they're all verifiable by reliable sources, and excludes creationist cosmologies which aren't.
• An online paper on the subject (not peer reviewed) is "The Evolution of Alternative Cosmologies" (2001) by Jayant V. Narlikar. It seems to summarise all those that you mention. --Iantresman 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Narlikar's paper works well for this subject to be developed on these lines. We could easily work off of it as being a good starting point for our article. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit clash) Now we're talking. Also huge thanks Astrobayes for the detailed analysis above. I started out in this as to tinker with the edges rather than overhaul but maybe this omelette cannot be made without breaking a lot of eggs. I fully accept SA's point that the scientific communities approach to this subject has been different through the years from the steady state vs expanding universe debates of the Hoyle/Bondi days through to the current day. However certainly in the UK there is a tolerance to well researched fringe theories. You'll never make chair at Oxford but these people do find work :0) (only string theorists manage that one)

I think Astrobaynes and ScienceApologist may have hit on a formula that will work. If the major theories that have ever been labeled as "non-standard" or "altenative" by the astrophysics world are identified then they can be described by their history (be it short or long). Early adherents to steady state cosmologies were good scientists and at the time were top people in this area but any theory that fails to move with fresh observational results loses credibility and supporters over time. Some fall out of favour then observational results will spring a surprise such as the organic matter found in comets and its implication for Wickramasinghe theories.

As for sources: To define a theory as a scientifically recognised "non-standard cosmology" I would be looking for references from the likes of The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ), Journal of Astronomy and Astropysics, Nature etc as these would be the only category of sources acceptable as references in a paper. PhD thesis should be treated with care as although they are subject to review it tends to be much smaller scale rather than community wide as with the published journals - anyway I don't think the community would seriously consider an alternative cosmology proposed in a thesis until peer-reviewed papers had been published. Most good University libraries should have archives of these journals so they are verifiable - we're in big trouble if they don't count. Obviously other sources could be used to talk about these subjects but for defining what's in or out I think we should be quite clear. There seem to be non theistic theories that will not meet this criteria so some way will have to be thought of to categorise them.

An article of this type would put the theories into context and the reader would gain some idea of the journey modern cosmology has travelled. It should also nicely complement the Big Bang article and give further background as to why there is no real debate about whether it happened. Anything that helps educate the public about how a theory can have problems and need refinement but not actually be wrong will be a very valuable article. Giving the context that SA suggests will also stop undue credibility being given to very marginal ideas.

Personally this is a bad time for me to get involved too deeply but I'll try to look over SA's suggestions over the weekend and see if there is anything I can add. It looks like we were all trying to say the same things but needed a fresh approach. Sophia 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine - and maybe it even could've worked if it were tried- but for the Single Agenda. The requirement exists for a rewrite of every section of the article to provide the slanting and repetition of traditional irrelevancy that "disproves" competing theories to the BB (or "Big Poof" as it is become known here). Seems silly? There is a point to the method though. Saves us all from uncomfortable soul-searching [we couldn't leave these posh confines], and best of all it eliminates all these silly arguments here too. gods of Einstein and Hawking, Save Us from the Change. The future is horrible enough already without things changing 'round. Science works and that's that. Seems so anyway from here. Sorry kids. Ta! ∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this just about peer review?

Didn't I say that right at the start... peer-reviewed reliable sources? --Iantresman 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep - you did. It's always the best standard for science based articles isn't it? Sophia 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did say, and well done, you had to go through alot to make a simple point. Seems to me clear that what the article tries to cover is science. and theories that may not be mainstream at the moment but still are, were, or have a chance of being, scientific, and at least promulgated by professional or genuine scientists and, importantly, without religious bias. Creationism is a nice myth for the 15th century but that of Darwin is the only one on this subject, sadly perhaps, that is relevant to science in the 20th and 21st century, so unless this is a history of "non standard" theories it should be left out. Science is wholly opposed to it, as far as I've seen.--Lucas

This gives creationist ideas too much credit and represents original research. Creationism will be left out because this article will be written from the perspective of post Shapley-Curtis debate cosmologies that ultimately culminated in a consensus in the community on the Big Bang. Creationism doesn't even belong in the history of cosmology as it was invented as an oppositional philosophy to scientific discourse. (See creationism for more). --ScienceApologist 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, finally, I am glad to hear you along with the rest of us, also now wish to exclude Creationism. I admire that you were flexible on this. By the way, this I have not originally researched it was just my opinion. Creationism in its current form is, as you say, mainly just to oppose science.

However, as to the history of the ideas of creationist cosmology; well, it does in fact belong to that, and has ancient origins. and one could even argue (and I'm not) that it will at the end of the day stand out from scientific ones, since science, every x hundred years, or so, tends to undergo "revolutions" that rubbish older scientific ideas.

--Lucas 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: this is an article about non-standard physical cosmologies. Unless you can cite some physics literature that seriously entertains creationism and other theological cosmologies, kindly go Jon 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't simply relying on peer review articles or not, it's about defining what constitutes a non-standard physical cosmology. Right now we're repositioning the definition to include historically notable theories so that we can exclude creationist cosmologies as well as such off-beat ideas as time cube. Thus, this article will take the form of a useful reference work instead of a bit of pulp fiction. If you care to read the above discussion you will see that what I was asking for all along was a careful definition of the term and it took some comments from Sophia and Astrobayes to really distill what the content of this article should be. I hope people don't just sit around celebrating their foresight about "peer review" (which was really never debated anyway) and help us actually reformulate this article as per above suggestions. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Before we begin the rewrite

A warning. The current proposal on the table which seems to have broad support will require us to line-up the article as closely as possible to the history of the scientific mainstream. This will require us to marginalize some non-standard cosmologies in the present-day as we compare them to the Big Bang because nonstandard researchers are simply marginalized today though they weren't in the past. What the new article will do is contextualize nonstandard proposals in relation to their historical importance to the development of modern physical cosmology similar to what Narlikar's article does. I'm just letting those editors know that this will make the article much more "pro-Big Bang" when it deals with contemporary understandings simply because it will allign it more closely with the scientific mainstream. --ScienceApologist 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Aside from the inclusion of creationist cosmologies, I am quite happy with the rest of the article.
• I do not see a summary of Alternative cosmologies (this article) to be the same as an article on the history of cosmology, nor do I see a requirement to compare to the Big Bang.
• I am quite happy for your write a new article on the History of Cosmology. --Iantresman 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be continuity across the subject articles so it's inevitable that modern non standard cosmologies will be marginalised. As long as this is done by illustrating with references the specific points at which the alternative theories stretch things too far for the comfort of most cosmologists then this will enlighten the reader without doing a "hatchet job" on the theories. There is politics within astronomy and theories can fall out of favour for the wrong reasons (my husband was recently notified of a paper proving his model of a particular galaxy was correct even though doubt was cast at the time it was published by an influential professor with a conflicting theory) so it's fair to report the reasons the alternative cosmology supporters stick to their theories to provide balance. We're here to report - not to champion causes or right wrongs in the real world. If we stick to good comprehensive references we should be able to strike the right balance. Sophia 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely if we marginalise modern non standard cosmologies, this will no longer be an article on non standard cosmologies? --Iantresman 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In a historical context they are important: to the present community they are marginalized. --ScienceApologist 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you talking about describing alternative cosmologies as marginalised (which they are), or will the article marginalise them in favour of standard cosmologies (which we shouldn't do since the article is about alternative cosmlogies) --Iantresman 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The only way to avoid undue weight in what could be viewed as a POV fork article is to set the theories in context. As long as we reference everything we will be fine as the availability of reliable data should provide a natural balance for the article. Sophia 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course alternative cosmologies need to be set in context, but not at the expense of the subject of the article. After all, there are many scientific articles which pretty much ignore undue weight, and give alternative theories NO mention at all. --Iantresman 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the best approach to this now that we all seem to have a plan or outline of attack is to, as is stated above, set each of the cosmologies - and the article - in context at the start. And since we're excluding creationist cosmologies (becuase they are already addressed here), we can now focus upon the rich history of the various non-big-bang physical cosmologies, and with proper context we can avoid forking articles. Not that you needed another nod to get going SA, but I concur with the majority here. Cheers, Astrobayes 11:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Creationist Section Moved

We've all discussed this so I've moved the creationist section out of the article (creationist cosmologies are already covered in this article) here, verbatim:

Creationist ideas {{Fact}}

Main article: Creationist cosmologies

Young Earth Creationists who for various reasons object to standard cosmology have offered a variety of alternatives that have ranged from the idea that the universe was created as according to Genesis with light from distant objects created in transit (Omphalism) to more involved critiques such as proposing a non-constant speed of light or a bounded universe that erupted from a white hole. [24] Old Earth creationists do not object to the standard model of cosmology in astrophysics and are known to debate their fellow creationists over the issue. Both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism have been considered by skeptical organizations and the scientific community to be pseudoscience.

Cheers, Astrobayes 12:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Title change: Alternative cosmologies

I would like to suggest that we change the name of the article from "Non-standard cosmologies" to "Alternative cosmologies" for the following reasons:

• "Alternative cosmologies" appears to be in more common usage. A phrase search shows:

Source	Alternative cosmologies	Non-standard cosmologies
NASA Astrophysics Data System	(72 hits)	(31 hits)
Google Books	(148 pages)	(7 pages)

• "Alternative" has no bias, unlike "non-standard"
• We can always redirect "Non-standard cosmologies" to "Alternative cosmologies", so there would be no problem with links from existing pages. --Iantresman 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a place for both terms and I'm not sure one is better than the other. Both terms actually have bias, "alternative" eliminates majority modeling suggestions and "non-standard" insists on such. Your ADSABS counting is irrelevant to this discussion because many of the pages that use "alternative cosmologies" are doing so in a slightly different context from the subject of this article. For example, many of the first links you include for "alternative cosmologies" are discussing alternative models for dark energy (which is a varying of the equation of state for the dark energy component of the universe). There is a place for discussing these "alternative models" which accept the Big Bang, but the article is broader than this -- it's about historical models which rejected the Big Bang too. I think that non-standard cosmologies is the best because it clearly dilineates the current divide between the scientific consensus, the also-rans, and the novel upstarts that seek to reportion ΛCDM. Narlikar uses nonstandard cosmologies in his unpublished review to good effect -- one of the best resources we have on the historical development of the subject. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the two can more or less be used interchangably, I see no harm in having both redirect to the same article. Jon 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

...Then what would the name of the main article be, if both "non standard-" and "alternative-" cosmology redirects here? Aside from that I see improvements to this article from either perspective given in this section here. If forced to choose however, a conservative choice is the wisest for the reasons SA states above, so I would have to stick with "non-standard," even though Ian's excellent sleuthing above shows that Google - arguably the most popular search engine in the world - pulls more public recognition of "alternative" than "non-standard." My "vote," as it were, is to keep the current title until a more compelling case can be made for its change. Cheers, Astrobayes 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think standard cosmology is not as sure a thing as the name suggests, since it has (and is?) undergone major revisions in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, there are different allegiancies at different universities, eg, some are not so plused by the ad-hoc-ness of the inflationary model etc.. As suggested above, a better name would be "alternative cosmologies" or simply "cosmologies" (since what is temporarily called "standard" would be the standard (singular) cosmology, all the others would come under the plural). Lucas

What is verifiable is that vast majority of cosmologists accept the vanilla banana model. This is the "standard". It's true that it is a "new" standard, but it is still representative of scientific consensus. This can be verified simply by looking at papers published on the subject on a daily basis. --ScienceApologist 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but nor is science merely majoritarian. I think the issue here anyhow is with the word "standard" and not necessarily about the numbers at universities (which tend to enforce consensus to some degree) who agree to a certain description of the cosmos, though that itself could be a definition of the meaning of our use of the word "standard". The problem for the tone of an encyclopedia, is to be able to give a longer and broader view rather than just picking the theory that is most popular at universities on the day, and, at the same time, without giving just a history of the subject.

Because cosmology is almost on the borders of science and metaphysics, only becoming "scientific" after Einstein, standardisation is somewhat fraught, and, in view of the major changes it has recently undergone, the word "standard" might be best avoided and reserved for other, more stable and less metaphysical, areas of science.

Lucas

Lucaas, much of your commentary is original research. There are people who refer to standard cosmology. There are people who refer to non-standard cosmology. But in writing an encyclopedia we do not evaluate whether or not this is "best avoided" or has associated with it categorical imperatives. We are just reporting, we are not out to provide cogent, original analysis. You'd be best to avoid these lines of inquiry. --ScienceApologist 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And there are people who use "alternative cosmologies". So how do we decide between "alternative" and "non-standard"? Commonality of use, and neutrality of term. "Alternative" wins out however you argue it. --Iantresman 07:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't established that people more commonly use "alternative cosmologies" when dealing with the subject of this article. All you've establishrd is that there are more searc engine hits to the term. To convince us it is really more common, you should evaluate the hits to make sure they are dealing with this subject. --ScienceApologist 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is equally encumbant on yourself to demonstrate that "Non-standard cosmology" has more usage. I've provide some data, you should provide yours. --Iantresman 14:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So how do you propose anyone should "convince" you, if you also categorically state in the same breath that we are all "best to avoid these lines of inquiry?" Jon 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment you are referring to was not addressed at either you or User:Iantresman, but rather User:Lucaas who has been posting original research and tangential discussions on numerous talkpages including Talk:Big Bang and Talk:Modern geocentrism. If you want to go through the references Ian made and document how many are actually dealing with the subject of this article, then we might have a more fair determination of what term is used more often to indicate this group of cosmologies. --ScienceApologist 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that for Science Apologist, to show any intelligence is to be accused of "original research". I think you are misguided in your belief that you can write an encyclopedia without thinking, or by using some mathematical counter of what is most popular, or by merely cutting and pasting stuff, see WP:Original Automaton One must be selective, aim for a certain reader, and use a tone that is not entirely "taken in" by the fads of the day. The point I made above, that cosmology recently emerged from and borders upon metaphysics, is not original research and is a consideration for choosing the most suitable term here.Lucas

The search on the NASA database is rather dubious. If you click on the first dozen articles under alternative cosmologies only 2 use the phrase "alternative cosmologies' or "alternative cosmology" the rest just have cosmologies and alternative in the abstract. Usually as "alternatives .." and then the word cosmologies appears later on in the abstract. On the other hand if you click on the first dozen articles under non-standard cosmologies all but two actually use the phrase or "non-standard cosmology". If these trends continue -- I don't know if they do -- this suggests that your NASA search would actually show that non-standard is the more widey used. Presenting search data without checking to make sure the articles actually use the term "alternative cosmologies" is sloppy at best. Salsb 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this evaluation at first glance, though I did not go systematically either. --ScienceApologist 17:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't have any refs to hand but in physics in general you tend to get something referred to as the "standard model" which is the current vanilla banana model (love that saying) and all other models that approach from a different angle are called non-standard. Where my experience seems to differ from SA's is that in cosmology I always regarded standard models to be taken with a tiny pinch of salt (ie you just never know but we're pretty sure we're there) whereas the non-standard models required varying sizes of pinches of salt (some terminally large!). My experience is that the term "non-standard" would be the scientific description so if that's what we're writing - then that's what it should be called. Sophia 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My own thoughts echo those of Sophia, Salsb, and SA thus far. The point has been made through the reference provided above by Ian by these individuals that "non-standard" is actually the best descriptor. I agree. Cheers, Astrobayes 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick rough search on http://scholar.google.com/ for actual phrases in quotes, rather than saparate words, turned up these results:

Google Scholar search results

Exact phrase	Count
"alternative cosmology"	166
"alternative cosmologies"	187
"non-standard cosmology"	45
"non-standard cosmologies"	487

...which isn't very conclusive. The phrases "non-standard" or "alternative" seem to be merely convenient adjectives, rather than actual combining terms in the same sense as "alternative cancer therapy" might be in medical literature. So, what's the problem with pointing both to the same article? Jon 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, alternative cosmology already does redirect here. Secondly, without the context for these citations, it is impossible to determine what subject the authors were referring to. --ScienceApologist 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to do might be to note this other title "Alternative Cosmologies" in the opening sentences of the article, eg, "A non-standard, or alternative, cosmology is any of a number of competing cosmological..." --Lucas

Why are big bang advocates editing here? Or, 'policing state thought'

Why is ScienceApologist, a big bang advocate, rewriting this article?

Tommy Mandel 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm a Wikipedian. --ScienceApologist 06:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont be jealous if he's so much smarter than everyone he disagrees with. The unsaved don't posess true Scientific Souls. ∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Because all Wikipedia editors are encouraged to make bold edits, and having a broad range of writers/editors working on an article ensures higher article-quality by forcing everyone to adhere to WP:NPOV (if two "sides" work on a project, the results are forced to the middle) and WP basic policy et.al. I think it's great that SA, or I, or anyone could edit here. After all, we are a "...global ant colony, except that there is no queen, and users choose their own roles...Whatever you decide to do, every Wikipedian is valuable,"(source) Cheers, Astrobayes 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

so, "rewriting" articles is the same as "editing" ? "re-writing" as "contributing to consensus"? Is wholesale rewriting a responsive collaboration in anyones' view? The "rewriting" we are consistently seeing is non-consensual, not collaboration. it's mere contradiction-the edit war. Worse it's political. Those with the inner life of police censor articles for conformance according to their "standard". Leaving proponents of more robust discussion utterly shut-out of the article purporting to represent their views. Obviously this will result in some torturous frustrations, and the precise question seen in the header of this section.

Are we not all human enuf to recognize the pattern?Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As mediation failed here spectacularly, the motivation of particular proponents of "Standard Cosmology" becomes ironically clear. Rest comes only when articles with such names as "Non-standard cosmology" are rendered text-book compliant with the standard theories-or the article is frozen or removed. It's the american syndrome. If SA can't have all the marbles, he'll spat and cry until no-one can compete. Something like how Fox-TV works, defining the argument while relying on name-calling with the red-herrings. As if America's great con, Capital, has not warped "science" over at every level from the FBI to NASA. There is a consiracy so large you over-look it- Empire. Your academic experience of your "Standard" science has left you unfamiliar with the effect of experience. What Stepford children these moderns pump out: plump yet boring. Perhaps we should go ahead and try hosting the rowdy articles on user pages? Works for me. It certainly sets a tempting trap. ∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a reminder to the con...team of Joke, Scienceapologist and art

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

Tommy Mandel 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he seems to have the most spare time? Jon 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

along with the snarkiest bone to pick, paired with that buffalo-sized chip on his shoulder? Ah-ha...∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what is really going on? What really goes on in controversial articles is that a group assumes power and what they do not want in the article does not last. For example, if one were to place quantized redshift into the article it would be deleted. Indeed, if one were to go to the article quantized redshift, it states that quantized redshift has not been confirmed, which is simply not true. All the papers confirming quantized redshift have been removed. After watching SA work, it is obvious that he methodocically removes evidence that does not confirm the big bang theory. Which is exactly what he is doing here, when he is done, it will be clear to any reader of the article that the big bang theory is the only valid theory. Opposing arguments will not exist in the article. For example, Hubble never believed that redsahift meant expansion, and this conclusion appears in the literature, but it is continually removed by SA whose justification is that it is nonsense.

BTW, a recent paper, just out, shows that mature galaxies existed at the alledged early stages of the universe AND newly formed galaxies are found today. That paper will never appear in wikipedia as long as SA is around, watch. Those who know SA well are laughing, those who do not know him are being duped

Tommy mandel 67.149.46.237 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, it seems that items are written in the past tense and with the intent of disproving each one. Since it is clear that they are non-standard there is no need for such tightness, as though a disaster would occur if someone didn't get the Gospel according to science, even though some standard sciences, such as Atomic science or Lobotomy science have been far more disasterous. If any group should be more involved in an article it should be those who know most about it and likely have a balanced or slightly sympathetic view.

I would not say that redshift quantization would be removed since it is proposed for inclusion above.

Another abuse seems to be the horror some editors try to invoke by labelling something creationist, as though it were some kind of contamination, such overuse of a term renders the it useless in an argument and as good as merely saying "yuck!". It is as though Science Apologiser would say 2+2 is not = 4 because it was once said by a creationist! I think what is being attempted is the forming of some kind of sciencio-fascism, of which Science Apologist is merely one of its minions following orders. As to all editors being in an "ant colony," no thanks, keep your "creationist!" ideas to yourself. --Lucas

Read WP:AGF. This is essential if you are going to work at Wikipedia. Otherwise you'll end up believing that there are great conspiracies afoot. --ScienceApologist 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nan. Step on a crack-break mummy's back. Wild things there-No, no- Musn't touch down there! ∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe, I know. It is obvious Tommy Mandel

Yet another word that has become overused and meaningless, "conspiracy",

I know it requires thought and work, but do try to say something, rather than just spiting out platitudes. --Lucas

"Sciencio-fascism"?? That's about one step away from slamming into Godwin's Law. Better watch out. Anville 16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting titbit but, as you say, "one step away", it is not there, in fact it is you who

actually "slam into" this "law" by linking this page to that word. Fascism however has a long history and is more complicated than that. Here it refers to a political undercurrent prevalent, though less so now, in certain scientific discourses that make claims in an authoritarian fashion for only one indubitable and true science, when, in fact, science like politics, in the course of the 20th century, failed to establish any single foundational truth for itself and remains, essentially, unprovable. Hence, a logical response for science would be to multiply "non-standard" theorising. --Lucas

It would be so much easier, so much more productive, so much more informative, so much more respectful of the reader, if the various positions were presented as they actually exist. A real encyclopedia, written by invited experts, does not spend half the time trying to demean one theory in favor of the other theory. Both theories are presented, faithfully, and the synthesis is left to the reader. (Isn't it the editor who is held to a neutral point of view? Like is it really right for a heavy metal musician/editor to edit the Rock & Roll article with the intent to show that Rock and Roll is not in favor? And in doing that eliminate all the wonderful times Rock & Roll afforded (some of) us? )

Science apologist writes:

One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory has been to provide a prediction that corresponds to the observations of the abundance of light elements in the universe. Along with the explanation provided for the Hubble's law and for the cosmic microwave background, this observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories to explain.

" ...observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories..." - Says who? SA is clearly profoundly unfamiliar with theories outside our official science. SA is further clearly unfamiliar with anything but the kind of Formal Democracy Americans try to sell, wnd when the offer is declined, is coerced. But that's not "conspiracy", SA knows conspiracies are inherent logical fallacies.. or at least vanishing unlikely when life and power is for sale. ∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet I can find this: History of 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html We present the history of estimates of the temperature of intergalactic space. We begin with the works of Guillaume and Eddington on the temperature of interstellar space due to starlight belonging to our Milky Way galaxy. Then we discuss works relating to cosmic radiation, concentrating on Regener and Nernst. We also discuss Finlay-Freundlich’s and Max Born’s important research on this topic. Finally, we present the work of Gamow and collaborators. We show that the models based on an Universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion predicted the 2.7 K temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang.

64.12.116.137 05:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Science apologist asks us to read this - "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."

I do not assume that SA writes in good faith. I have seen him deliberately mess everything up, and then embroil serious editors in trivial arguments. He is not here to try and help alternative cosmology, he is a big bang proponent POV Pushing and it is obvious. He is very good at it, but it is also clear as day what he is doing. Unfortunately a typical reader does not know SA, and assumes good faith. Tommy Mandel 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Creationist is a religious term. If we have creationist in the article I can think of a dozen other religious terms that should be here too. BTW, what is creation from nothing? Untestable nothing on top of it? Funny how the pot calls the kettle black - creation of the Universe from nothing, and then expanding it with unknown physics so that the math fits is not science, and when that doesn't work add invisible matter, is the kind of religion that science was invented to supercede. Look up apologist... Tommy Mandel 05:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric."

Tommy Mandel

Venturing a Conformal time models sub-title of Steady state theories invoked "rv non-notable inclusion. Probably violates WP:VAIN and WP:OR" deletion action from the prime editor. I had expected further elaboration on this less known part of Milne's work here to balance the mentioning of the following peer-reviewed work still on the fringe. /Kurtan 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if telling the truth enough has the same effect as telling a lie long enough and everyone will believe it...

EXACTLY the same effect. The need for critical skepticism becoming obviated, logic falls into formal abuses, and power follows.
When was "the truth" ever

"the whole truth"? ∆∆∆ Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipolicy pages--

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.

SA don't you realize that your POV Pushing is obvious to anyone who reads it? I know you are caught between a rock and a hard place, that you cannot push a POV without it looking like a POV, so why don't you just wake up? Seems like you are all over the place, every article having anything to do with cosmology is being rewritten by you, and to read you, the only theory worth reading about is the big bang theory, which incidently, is actually creationist science. Poof, poof, poof and here we are. The Big Poof TheoryTommy Mandel 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Tommy Mandel 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I do like that. May we use it???∆∆∆Hilarleo 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up space on this talk page with these irrelevancies, perhaps you would like to become an "involved party" and comment here about SA's alleged misconduct WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience_vs_Pseudoskepticism. –Joke 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

" take up space" ? I thought this was a virtual conversation.

Fixing an error in section "Early GR attempts"

The section starts with fragment:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. Such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction, a scalar term in Einstein's equations that would come to be known as the cosmological constant.

The problem is that it is not a true story but a popular legend only told among civilians who don't know the first thing about gravitation. The universe can't collapse due to the gravitational attraction since there is no such attraction in the real world (at least not according to Einstein's gravitation). Einstein knew that he doesn't need to worry about the gravitational attraction after proving that it does not exist, but the equations had been showing the collapse. It was something to worry about since they were supposed to reflect the physics. So he introduced the cosmological constant to fix the equations. Not to neutralize some imaginary force. Then, after he achieved equilibrium it turned out that the equilibrium is unstable if equations are in their simplest form. At this moment Einstein gave up fixing the equations saying that he stopped understanding his theory when the matematicians started to explain it. Then the applied mathematicians like MTW took over setting cosmological constant to zero for many decades. It produced equations desribing cycloidal universe, which turned out about 1998 to be not physics neither so the cosmological constant has been returned to Einstein's equations. To make the long story short I proposse to fix this section this way:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to fix his so far incomplete equations by adding to them a constant. The constant would come to be known later as the cosmological constant. It is a necessary part of Einstein's equations till today.

If no one objects for a week I'll fix the article. Jim 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is not correct. Before you change it to this, you're going to have to find a reliable source to demonstrate that your understanding is correct. I would suggest an introductory cosmology or introductory astronomy text. In particular, a non-zero cosmological constant is not a "necessary" part of Einstein's equations and Einstein did invent the scalar to accomodate his assumptions of a static universe. The current wording illustrates this nicely, you're wording is incorrect. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you enjoy your illusion of being smarter than Einstein I'm not going to spoil your fun. I rather concentrate on completing my PhD in gravitation that is soon due than argue with Newtonian crowd. Jim 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SA, Having some free time, I decided to come back to our dispute and try to solove it peacefully. I'll try to educate you a little bit on Einstein's gravitation and explain to you to what degree it is different than Newtonian. Since I'm doing my PhD in it I might be not completely wrong and even worth of listening to:

It starts with discovery of Einstein's that in the real world there is no gravitational attraction of the matter. It is not that Newton ever seriously proposed something like that but despite it, its existence became a popular myth. Physicists, against Newton's better judgement, started spreading news about gravitational attraction acting through an empty space, just because of Newton's equation starting with $F=...$ that has been labeled gravitational force. Since Einstein the physics got rid of this force for good replacing it with the curvatures of spacetime generated by masses within space. The effect of curvatures of spacetime is such that the energy of any object contained in its mass $m$, drops along certain line (called gradient of gravitational field) by a tiny amount such that the object stars moving with acceleration $g=-(dE_{g}/dx)/m$, where $dE_{g}$ is called geavitational energy, gaining kinetic energy $dE_{k}=gmdx$ and so we have $dE_{k}+dE_{g}=0$. This way the object total energy doesn't change, and so there are no forces acting (the object is following a geodesic line in the spacetime). Only when the object is immobilized in relation to the source of the curvature of spacetime and so its kinetic energy drops to zero, the object feels an inertial force equal $mg$ which is called gravitational force. But note that this force shows up when the object is immobilized. Not in an empty space where there are no restraints put on the object and it is free to float wherever it pleases keeping its total energy constant (satisfying the principle of conservation of energy). E.g. along an eliptic path around some star.

That's why in Newtonian physics there are kind of phantom forces (imagined by people as $F=GMm/r^{2}$) that seem to accelerate the objects, but in the real (Ensteinian world) there are no forces and the objects float directed only by curvatures of the spacetime.

And that's why the collapsing universe is a myth and Einstein didn't need to add anything to stop the collapse just had to add something to fix his equations that didn't reflect the physics. And the reason for the lack of collapse is that the space is isotropic so there is no prefered direction along which something could collapse.

There is a lot of idiots acting in gravitation, especially in cosmology. Read Feynman to learn why: http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm

Jim 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I'm not even going to begin to explain to you how confused you are, but I guess from what you are illustrating, they aren't teaching really good GR at Warsaw University. I'll make sure to let my colleagues know. --ScienceApologist 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

SA, it is just your word against Einstein's regarding this disputed attractive force. Of course either of you might be right but not both. So to clarify the situation I placed a Request for Comment to learn the majority opinion. If it goes in your favor I'll learn something, not about gravitation, since I think that Einstein said it all, and the rest are just comments, but about people. Jim 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim, Newtonian gravity is the limit of Einstein's GR. Therefore, masses (or mass energies) attract each other. --ScienceApologist 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SA, you see, telling what your reasons are simplifies the discussion since then you turn up to be a reasonable guy who has a legitimate reason and not just wanting to be right at any cost. By telling me your reasons you cleared out the situation and now I can use my argument to couter yours. And you may decide if my argument is legitimate and eventually either change your opinion or fine tune your argument.

After this didactic introduction I can tell you why your argument is faulty. There are a few reasons but one suffices so I pick up the simplest which is used most of the time against the existence of attractive force. The argument is that experiments show that the time dilation predicted by Einstein's theory is an experimental fact. It necessarily implies the existence of gravitational force and exactly the same as predicted by Newton's law. I explained already how it implies this force but I might be not too gifted a teacher so I can throw in more details if you missed something in my explanation. Anyway, scientists who work in gravitation know how it implies this force so they don't doubt. Therefore, if except Einstein's force there existed also a gravitational attrction the force should be twice as big as it is. That's all.

I might add some comments if it isn't clear anough: the Einsteinian force is an observational fact and Newonian force is assumed from the math of Newton's equation. Having such a choice the scientists have to deside in Enstein's favor and consider the Newtonian force an illusion that is only a result of our math. A result of our assumption that "masses attract each other" while they don't since gravitational force turned out to be an inertial force acting from inside the gravitating body in a curved space in the presence of dilated time. Nothing else. Pure curvature od spacetime. So it is not even "attractive" but "pushing" as any inertial force is. It just happens to be in a direction of a center of mass of some other massive bodies and that's why people decided that the massive bodies "attracts" each other. But it is the same type of reasoning as assuming that a trunk of a car attracts its passengers while the car is accelerating.

Newton didn't have clocks accurate enough to do the Pound-Rebka experiment to dispell the myth of "attractive force" but he surely had sound enough mind not to believe in existence of this "attraction" acting at a distance.

Also the physics isn't necessarily always what non specialists (even other physicists or astrophysicists) believe in. I tried to show you this by quoting thoughts of Feynman from the World Gravitation Conference, to whom I believe you might have more confidence than to me (which of course I don't blame you for). Jim 11:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obsessed, obviously, with Mach's principle, which is not something that has been universally accepted. Gravitational time dilation does not show that there is no such thing as a gravitational force. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It just shows that the gravitational time dilation is the reason for that force and so consequently there is no gravitational attraction. Of course, one still feels the gravitational force while standing on the Earth, just the reason for it is different than attraction to the Earth. The reason is an inertial force acting on one's body and pushing this body towards the Earth, because of the time rate slowing down in direction of the Earth (exactly the conditions in a rocket accelerating in opposite direction).

So may we agree now that we reached an agreement on exchanging the fragment in question by something more in line with the lack of gravitational attraction in Einstein's physics, which has been already proposed? Jim 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The fragment in question in the article is fine. If it doesn't conform to your perspective regarding Mach's Principle, that's not Wikipedia's problem: that's your problem with your own POV-mission. --ScienceApologist 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it fine if it says ...that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. So I uderstand you believe in gravitational attraction to accomodate for the opinion of the author of this fragment, and the lack of it at the same time, to accomodate for discovery of Einstein'a. Than we definitely need a comment from guys who wouldn't hold two opposite opinions on the same subject. Jim 09:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that gravitational attraction is found in the Einstein tensor. --ScienceApologist 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I don't. But if it's really found then why don't you show it.

You must realize that to show that something exists is easier than to show that something doesn't. If you can't show, it has to be treated as your original research or your personal opinion, which then needs at least revealing your sources since it is not a standard opinion of legitimate scientists working in GR. It might be of course also an opinion of some idiots about whom Feynman wrote in the piece that I've sent you, and who are quite numerous around the world, according to Feynman. Jim 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Take the limit of the Stress-energy tensor for a mass field of density rho. Then calculate the second derivative of the r-coordinate of the appropriate metric. The equation reduces down to Newtonian acceleration where a(r) = 4 pi G rho r/3. This shows that Newtonian attraction is part-and-parcel to Einstein's equations of GR. --ScienceApologist 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but your main contention (that gravitational attraction exists) is not implied by your premise (that the equation reduces down to Newtonian acceleration). Your premise is true but your implication is faulty and so is your main contention. The reasoning that you used is known in scientific jargon as handwaving and despite that it is used often by legitimate scientists it can't be used to prove anything. So your main contention remains unproved. Furthermore by using this type of argument you have shown that you don't know certain rules which is OK even for an intelligent civilian as yourself however you rather shouldn't argue agianst guy like Einstein and consider it very carefully when you do.

If you are curious about the logical error that you made then ask and I might find the time to explain it but you should rather work it out yourself since it is not that complicated and I'm rather busy guy. For the time being we have to wait for responses to the RfC that I asked for, unless you agree to modify the text under consideration as I proposed.

Jim 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait we will have to do because my argument is neither handwaving nor illogical. --ScienceApologist 06:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Even bigger problem with creationism.

This bigger problem is that the Big Bang is a creationist hipothesis which is yet to produce a single scientific prediction. So far it predicted only the creation of the whole universe from nothing and constant creation of energy that is needed to compensate for dynamical friction of photons while they move through the universe.

The supernova project has been created to provide for the first scientific prediction of the Big Bang "theory", namely the collapsing universe. It has been proposed by Stephen Hawking, to show that the Big Bang is a legitimate scientific theory. As we all know the attempt failed already in 1998 and nobody even dared to inform Hawking at least till 2000 when he wrote his article on the Big Bang needing a single scientific prediction.

So now the situation is that the Big Bang is the only mainstream cosmology but it is not a scientific one yet just a creationist. And the University of Kansas says that being against the Big Bang is the atheist plot. Of course. Where God would be with his omnipotence if he couldn't create energy from nothing?

And in the meantime Einstein's stationary universe keeps fitting all the observations. How it is doing it can't be published since it would surely invalidate a lot of PhD degrees. Can't be done for the time being. So it seems that there is a real problem with creationism getting into the mainstream. Jim 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself, Jim. --ScienceApologist 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Learn what the term "conspiracy theory" mean to know when it is appropriate to use it. Jim 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the imperative has an assumed subject, I'm going to assume the subject is JimJast. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SA, you seem not to understand the issue. There is no conspiracy and it only looks like it to you. All living cosmologists (and even some already dead) made their PhD's on some aspects of BB, necessarily denying the legitimacy of a stationary universe. Do you think that they have to organize a conspiracy to save their skins now when all the observations show that they have screwed up completely because their physics was really a Newtonian comology with "gravitational attraction" since they didn't understand Einstein's? They don't need to conspire. It's enough if all of them, now professors of astronomy and editors and referees of papers on cosmology, just reject as not interesting the papers that cast any doubt on BB. To appear fair, they allow to publish papers that are so silly that they present no danger to the BB. Otherwise why would they judge with seemingly no formal errors (so it does not need a rebutal) but not interesting enough to physicists to be published papers that show that Einsteinian gravitation requires a Hubble redshift of the same value and acceleration as observed in our universe? Do you really think that it is not interesting to physicists? And have you ever read such an article in a legitimate scientific journal? Why not? Do you seriously believe that it can be explained by your conspiracy theory? 217.153.176.243 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this comment is so out in left field, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. --ScienceApologist 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I bet you won't :-) Jim 08:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Fixing an error in section "Early GR attempts"

This is a dispute about whether an "attractive gravitational force exists in Einsteinian physics". 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

... are in section Fixing an error in section "Early GR attempts".

Comment

According to my understanding of physics (while presently writing PhD thesis on gravitation so I better be right) there is no attraction between masses of the universe in Einstein's gravitation.

My opponent holds an opposite view and objects to my correction of the text under consideration. He does it despite me dedicating substential amount of time to explaining to him the mechanism of gravitational force in Einstein's physics (documented in the same section). It seems to be a hopeless deadlock slovable only by help from outside.

• In GR any quantity of non-exotic stress-energy attracts any other; however this is not the result of a gravitational force; instead it is due to the curvature of spacetime about the forces and matter that make up the stress-energy. User:Ben Standeven as 70.246.221.36 05:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thaks for responding. As I understand you're saying that the only possible forces over there are the tidal forces, and no attracting gravitational forces (that my opponent argues for).

To calrify the issue and adjust it to the actual argument: if we have two point particles (or stars) separated by empty space (to separate them from any stresses), and they're moving closer and closer to each other, the question is whether this movement is only the result of the curvature of spacetime (my POV) or there is an additional attraction due to the attractive gravitational force as stated in the disputed text? Jim 10:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify it even further: I argue that "attraction" is not a physical force (as implied by Newtonian physics) but just an illusion of force due to the lack of understanding of the reason for the movement of the particles (or stars) that float free of any forces, directed only by the curvatures of spacetime. Jim 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You have set up a straw man. The issue is that one can see the geodesic movement as due to curvature or as due to an external force creating a non-inertial reference frame. To claim that the attraction is not a "physical force" is to basically abandon the equivalence principle in favor of a No True Scotsman fallacy. --ScienceApologist 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One can do it but only as long as there is a negligible curvature of space (which one often forgets). I might have not objected if you said that "the Sun attracts the planets" or that "the Earth attracts you", which is a sloppy way of describing physics but it makes almost no difference in predictions. The space is flat enough in such cases for gravitation being modeled through the attraction. In the case of the universe the curvature of space can't be neglected and so you have to give up the attraction since then you have quantitative differences between your predictions and the real world. Jim 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't yet have an article on Newtonian cosmology, but when we do you'll see that the math is exactly the same. --ScienceApologist 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally admited that you are pushing Newtonian cosmology, which was by the way my point all the time. However math is not physics and the math of Newtonian gravitation is pseudoscience since 1915, and so is necessarily any other math that is "exactly the same". Math of Einstein's gravitation is only approximately the same. Vive la differance! Jim 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are arguing is akin to saying that we shouldn't say the Earth revolves around the sun since it is only following a geodesic. That's splitting hairs and meaningless semantics. Sure, Newtonian gravity is only approximate, but since the Friedmann equations can be derived from it, there is nothing wrong with using the physical insight gained from Newtonian cosmology to inform our descriptions. Sometimes the difference is not as important as you think. Calling it a pseudoscience is absolutely silly. What is a pseudoscience, though, is the proposal you have lined up from time-to-time (which have now, thankfully, been excised from this encyclopedia as original research). --ScienceApologist 14:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two descriptions of gravity offered is largely a matter of semantics, though partially a matter of convention as well. It is closer to the truth to say that according to General Relativity, the force of gravity is caused only by the curvature of spacetime, and that the gravitational force of attraction is an imaginary attraction that is merely an after-effect of the combined curvatures. There is indeed no such thing as attraction between masses. Two masses do not attract each other, period. On the other hand, to claim that there is an attraction between any two masses is normally considered to be a perfectly acceptable approximation to the truth when introducing the subject, since the ultimate effect of the combined curvatures is that the two masses attract each other. As I said before, this is an imaginary attraction, because they are not actually attracted to each other, it is merely the affect of the curved spacetime. Moving beyond General Relativity, Newtonian mechanics would say that the only truth is that two masses attract, because there is no such concept as spacetime. In addition, String cosmology has a completely different answer moving past even curved spacetime, though I do not feel that I understand it well enough to make any attempt at explaining it. So in short, if you are going with General Relativity, saying that gravity is the result of curved spacetime alone is the most fundamental answer, but it would not be wrong to say that two masses being attracted to each other is an effect of that curved spacetime. Robert A. Mitchell 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like now we all agree that there is no gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. Consequently the text that propagates such an idea among the readers of Wikipedia should be replaced. If no one objects withn a week I'm going to replace it. Jim 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I object. Robert points out rightly that the difference is largely a matter of semantics. Therefore, replacing the wording is not necessary nor desirable. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Robert A. Mitchell says: There is indeed no such thing as attraction between masses. Two masses do not attract each other, period. So I guess if you agree with Robert the fragment with attraction has to be changed because we don't want to fool the public into thinking that masses attract each other while they don't. Similarly as we don't want to fool the public into thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth depite that the difference is largely a matter of semantics.

Of course since I happen to work in this business I understand that the Big Bang hangs only on misinformation and that when the old generation dies out it is going to turn out that the universe actually is not expanding, still in perfect agreement with general relativity. But I don't have as much bisuness in supporting BB as apparently you do, so I can afford to insist on telling the truth. So I give you one more week for coming up with a rational argument why we should still feed the public false information. If you don't find any argument, or it is not rational, I'm going to change the fragment. Do we finally have an agreement?

Jim 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

the ultimate effect of the combined curvatures is that the two masses attract each other. Maybe it's best if you don't selectively quote. No agreement, no dice. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The full relevant fragment reads: There is indeed no such thing as attraction between masses. Two masses do not attract each other, period. On the other hand, to claim that there is an attraction between any two masses is normally considered to be a perfectly acceptable approximation to the truth when introducing the subject, since the ultimate effect of the combined curvatures is that the two masses attract each other. You may not understand why the author says the ultimate effect of the combined curvatures is that the two masses attract each other having said a sentence earlier Two masses do not attract each other, period. He must have not expected that you won't read the inconvenient words like normally and acceptable approximation to the truth and having two seemingly contradictory statements you won't be able to figure out which one is true (even when it is clearly stated that one is approximtion to the truth which in science means untrue. But of course you don't have to be a scientist and know the language but you shouldn't pick up out of two contradictory statements the one that you like better. You should notice that you don't understand what is written and leave the matter for the experts to decide.

The point is that if you are standing on the floor and you are not a gravity physicist you may think that the floor attracts you and it is normally considered to be a perfectly acceptable approximation to the truth. But Two masses do not attract each other, period. is not approximation to the truth but the truth itself. The Wikipedia is supposed to write the truth and not approximation to the truth. Have you finally got it and can I replace this fragment or we have to go all the way to the top banana? Jim 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "supposed to write" neither the truth nor the approximation to the truth. The standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". Read the link and find out why. --ScienceApologist 10:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So how do you verify your POV while all physicists maintain something just opposite to it? Jim 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite understand what the problem is here. To clarify that the gravitational attraction between bodies is an effect of the curvature of space clears up the misconception that there should be "antigravity" so would seem a valuable addition. Why in an encyclopedia should we stick to approximations when the concepts are as easy as this? Sophia 00:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add in this point, I think that'd be fine. I'm more than willing to look at a change in wording. However, as the article currently stands, it doesn't really mislead in my opinion. What I don't want to see is a removal of the point which is totally valid. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, let me explain the problem: ScienceApologist POV is that there is a gravitational attraction betwen masses, and official science's POV, according to General Relativity, is that there is no gravitational attraction. So the only problem is with ScienceApologist who maintains against science that gravitational attraction exists. Since he is able to reverse everybody's edits to fit his POV (apparently he has a lot of free time) it makes no sense to edit anything without his agreement since he will surely reverse it very soon. So he is bound to win. Since a long time I'm trying to convince ScienceApologist that science is right, to secure his agrement for the change of the text under consideration. Robert A. Mitchell told ScienceApologist that Two masses do not attract each other, period but unfortunately he added also On the other hand, to claim that there is an attraction between any two masses is normally considered to be a perfectly acceptable approximation to the truth, which ScienceApologist took as a pretext for maintaining against logic that Robert supports the idea of gravitational attraction and quoting him selectively. So the problem is deepened by the fact that ScienceApologist is immune to logic. Also he insist on pushing his POV about the Big Bang which necessarily requires messing up gravitation in which re-introducing gravitational attraction to physics helps a lot. You may not understand the connection with the Big Bang so I have to explain it too: if no one would believe in gravitational attraction then the Big Bang wouldn't be around since gravitational attraction is one of the leggs on which it stands. As seen in the fragment that I want to replace. Since official science already agrees that there is no gravitational attraction in the real world, only an illusion of it, caused by the curvatures of spacetime (not only the curvature of space as you write) I just insist on pushing the science's POV against ScienceApologist's POV to recover common sense in physics of gravitation, hoping that enough of it could be recovered to show clearly to all physicists that the Big Bang is not science if it can't do without obscuring the truth. Something that not many physicists are aware of, since cosmology is about the least important topic in physics and regular physists aren't interested in it a bit (and why should they if in cosmology one may be 100% wrong and no one is hurt). Jim 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for transparently outlining your agenda, Jim. Your explanation pretty much matches what I would give (except for the bit about me being opposed to "science" and "immune to logic"). --ScienceApologist 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So if we agree on basic stuff, and you are not really "opposed to science", and you are not "immune to logic" then do we have an agreement about replacing the disputed fragment? Jim 13:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we agreed on the basic stuff. I think your advocacy is POV-pushing, you are under the impression that if attraction is excised from the article that everyone will suddenly come to realize that your ideas are brilliant, the Big Bang is a lie, etc., etc. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Don't treat it as such. No agreement, no dice. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your dedication to BB cause is an inersting case. Would you mind telling what's your motivation? Jim 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Off topic. You can e-mail me if you're curious. --ScienceApologist 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your e-mail address? Jim 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Check my user page. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not there, at least not visible. Why don't you just write it? The same amount of writing). Jim 08:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is there under the e-mail this user on the sidebar, and I don't write my e-mail address anywhere because there are still spamming worms which collect such information off the internet. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in SA reasons for supporting BB who hoped that he is going to reveal them in e-mail as promised: after several attempts on my part to find out what he thinks he said only You can read about "my arguments" for the big bang in standard texts and I'm not paid to give you an education. I can't guess which standard texts he means since they are probably not the standard texts like Gravitation by MTW that insist on decelerating expansion of the universe due to gravitational attraction of matter that he supports so vigorously against general relativity. As documented above, asking SA is useless so I guess it must remain a mystery why SA thinks that masses attract each other and why he defends this silly idea. Jim 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since ScienceApologist fell silent for more than a week, and the author of the disputed fragment didn't respond to the request for citation, I modified the disputed fragment adding a full paragraph containing a fair (I hope) representation of SA's opinion based on his belief in Newtonian physics and therefore in the existence of attractive gravitational force in the universe. So I hope the fragment became as objective and balanced as it can possibly be. Jim 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift"?

I think this phrase should be changed - and I plan to do so in the future, depending on discussion here and improvements by other editors.

The first problem is that there is no reference whatsoever, or even enough detail to allow anyone to Google for further information. I assume the phrase refers to the interpretation of Supernovae Type 1A light curves, including especially the work at http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/. Some critiques and references to this important work can be found with:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/search?group=sci.astro.research&q=supernovae+dilation

and in Jerry W. Jensen's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207 .

Firstly I plan to properly reference this supernovae time curve research and probably some notable critiques.

Secondly I plan to alter "observed time dilation" to something indicating that the authors interpreted their observations in terms of time dilation, while also noting (in some suitably referenced way) that this line of research involves many corrections, transformations and assumptions about the nature of supernovae.

I plan to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Light_curve - and will probably link from there to here.

I think the supernovae 1a light curve research is really important. The conventional interpretation of it is that it demonstrates expansion of the Universe in the past, but at a rate in the which has lead to a revision of the BBT to include accelerating expansion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe .

Finally, the cosmological redshift is an observed phenomenon, and the Doppler interpretation of that redshift is compatible with the interpretation of observed light curves from extremely distant sources such as supernovae (gamma ray bursters too?) being time-dilated - because both are compatible with the Big Bang Theory.

BTW, would now be a good time to archive the material on this page above "Fixing an error in section 'Early GR attempts'"? Robin Whittle 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the references you list are reliable. The reliable references are to the classic papers on SN1a light curves. --ScienceApologist 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote "notable critiques" my intended meaning was "reliable critiques" - assuming there are any. Robin Whittle 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Doppler interpretation is compatible with BB but the observed light curves are also compatible with a stationary universe and as such don't support BB model. And furthermore the values of "acceleration" are almost exactly such as they are predicted for stationary universe (the prediction being (dH/dt)/H_o² = 0.5, while observation is 0.45) so the Doppler interpretation isn't really needed for anything since observations predict a stationary universe with density 6x10^-27kg/m³, since then it would produce Hubble constant H_o = 70 km/s/Mpc that is observed. Jim 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "accelerating universe" is really a swan song of BB since it can't explain it without a mystrious "dark energy" and non conservation of energy while Einstein's stationary universe theory (slightly expanded by truly yours) explains all observations without any new physics. Jim 22:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why it is so difficult to make BB folks to reveal their theory behind BB?

There is a strange phenomenon in science: It is that most scientist love to talk about their work except gravity physicists. It was Prof. Roy Glauber who turned my attention to it, already about 20 years ago when I was his student. Roy knew everybody in American physics (even worked with Einstein once) but when I asked him whether he knew anyone I could discuss BB with he said (approximately): I noticed long time ago that all scientis, but relativists, are happy to talk about their work, and when you ask them they explain their work to you with more details than you need. The relativists on the other hand, when you ask them how is their work going immediately feel offended and become agressive. And they don't tell you anything. So I don't think there is any relativist in the US that you can talk to about BB. Perhaps Alan Lightman since he is probably the only exception to the rule. However I talked already a lot to Alan Lightman and he was not a fanatic supporter of BB so I couldn't learn from him about BB. He might believe the opinion of Richard Feynman's, whom he liked a lot, that all of them are just idiots.

Lately I talked to one of BB supporters who behaved exactly as Roy said they all do, so it reminded me about what Roy noticed. I also noticed myself that all of them think that their ideas are described somewhere already by someone smarter than them. But when you get to the source it is always something that contradict some simple physics and the facts are just opposite to what they think they are (just read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler). One can't learn whether they have any good reasons for their stuff because the author is most of the time too busy with some important scientific projects to talk to you or if he's not busy, as the guy I mentioned since he has nothing else to do, he just doesn't want to. Does anyone has any theory why this phenomenon exists? Jim 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you are huffing and puffing a lot but have failed to really say anything of substance. This is the first time I am beginning to get vague hints that you actually may not "understand" something rather than being simply bemused at the stupidity of all those gravitational cosmologists who believe in the Big Bang. If there are really things you don't understand, a good place to start is Wikipedia. For example, Big Bang. But don't stop there. Read the references provided and the references in the references provided. If you don't understand something then, ask around. Specific questions are much better than vague requests for grandiloquent descriptions of "theories" behind a model paradigm. If you take an introductory GR class, you will learn about the basis for the Friedman model. If you take a graduate level cosmology class, you will learn, in detail, the subjects of BBN, cosmological models, CMB analysis, structure formation, etc. What more do you want? --ScienceApologist 09:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good place to start would be to explain why the proponents of BB insist that the universe is really expanding while the simple Einsteinian physics says that space of radius of curvature of R = 4.3 Gpc (which means of density 6x10^-27kg/m³) is supposed to have a redshift simulating exactly the observed accelerating expansion. Why is it not assumed that the space of our universe is stationary and that it has just such density?

I understand that for many years the proponents of BB insisted that due to the gravitational attraction of matter of the universe and Friedmann solutions the expansion has to be decelerating and so the simple Einsteinian physics was considered not working. However, since 1998 it is known that the expansion is accelerating after all, even better, exactly as predicted by this simple Einsteinian physics. So why do we still have real expansion and some dark energy instead just old fashioned Einsteinian physics in stationary space with H_o = c/R = 70km/s/Mpc, (dH/dt)/H_o² = 1/2, near quasars, "anomalous" acceleration of Pioneers 10 and 11 equal 7x10^-10m/s² etc.? Jim 22:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A month later still no answer to a specific question why the proponents of BB insist, against the simple Einsteinian physics, that the universe is really expanding? And what happened to ScienceApologist who asked for specific questions, possibly intending to answer them? Jim 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NEW ADDDED 3.1.1 Gravitational redshift

Impertinently erased again, as in Big Bang by Pjacobi

12:37, 12 May 2007 Pjacobi (Talk | contribs) (39,190 bytes) (rm redundancies, commenting, kiessinger-spam)

PROTEST! This is no SPAM but well founded and wellknown as Einstein effect, visibly shown in picture Gravitational redshift!

This is an effective meanig-dictatorship: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.158.94.86 (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC). 1. Incredible that this old but clear theory was forgotten nearly everywhere (may be seen as one TIRED LIGHT reason).

2. Rudolf Kiesslinger, Germany has offered since decades in vain and now again 25.000 € for anyone who evidently contradicts this gravity theory effectively (why no Big Bang people tried to get it? He got already very old with his offer).

3. I dared to impose him wirh an EXTERNAL LINK in that list.

4. ADDED there: 9 Bigbang problems, University Cambridge "Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology".

5. Sorry, but the article of UNIVERSITY BASEL failed while I searched it. Changed or lost?

6. Another problem of BIG BANG, there under section ...PROBLEMS was eliminated in that article now 3 times (Here I found not yet an adequate place to put it herein; - in quotes bare copy of WIKI):

7. And what makes the newly discovered NEGATIVE MATTER

Cosmological constant

Main article: cosmological constant

, cited:

"Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10^-35s^-2, or 10^-47GeV⁴, or 10^-29g/cm³, or about 10^-120 in reduced Planck units." Why is Einstein's cosmological constant 120 decimal orders(!) of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity?

wfcK (wfcKehler@aol.com) 84.158.111.230 12:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Cosmological entropy constant

I have discovered by observations and experiments that the same entropy-law of displacement (but with different size of the constant) is behind the dissipation of energy in the wave-propagation of as well electrodynamic radiation (as light) and hydrodynamics (liquids as water) and aerodynamics (sound).

Max Planck and Edwin Hubble have observed the same wave-elongation (with the same entropy-constant 6.6*10^-34) but both have misinterpreted it: Planck guessed that this constant difference between the wave units (that he calculated as frequency-units) was quantified units of energy, and Hubble believed that the Doppler-velocity was the explanation of the same fractional wave-elongation and caused by the expansion of the universe. But both was wrong: this dissipation is the entropy-mechanism that Rudolph Claussius defined and searched but never found.

Ingvar Åstrand, Sweden http://www.theuniphysics.info 14 May 2007

Dear ScienceApologist

Why do you refuse to discuss, as demanded?

Why did you erase again serious physics without demanded discussion if you do not agree or not understand?

To unterstand you should at first read once basic physics as the basis of GRT. Have you studied once FEYNMAN, LECTURES ON PHYSICS? Or only Big-Bang-physics and what your Prof. told you about?

Are you infected by a Big-Bang religion (please see how many religions support it in Big Bang)?

Please do not tell me that you have understood the physics, e.g at first 3 "miracles":

1. Quantum teleportation in Quantum entanglement related to Action at a distance (physics) part “Quantum mechanics”, with Einstein’s "spooky action at a distance." – Obviously “Quantum teleportation” will make new problems not only to Big-bang, to Tired light and other theories and should be seen also here.

2. Olbers' paradoxon, not really solved by Big-bang or other theories completely, only “solved in dream”.

3. But the biggest miracle must be God's “Big-Bang” with at least(!) 30 unsolved (partly falsely named) problems in http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn63. All other theories have defects as well but not so much!

Please read at first, then discuss serious arguments without miracles as "Big-bang-religion"

Zwicky proposed in August 26, 1929 an Integration of the whole Gravitational Potential in - F.Zwicky: On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space p.775; then, cited p.777: "In regard to D (diametre of a sphere for an integration by "divergenve theorem" above), it must be remarked that it should be as large as the dimension of the space over which masses are distributed, if those masses are regarded as independent from each other. But the masses are in reality coupled by gravitational forces and the effect of an external perturbation upon them must be computed by considering the system of the far distant masses as a whole".

Then he used the Gauss integral of the divergence theorem within a shell of radius D. This gives a summary of all by the incredible Gauss-effect that a whole shell (Surface integral) and the total sum of sources and sinks of its internal volume (Volume integral) are equal regardless of extern sources or sinks!!!

Zwicky calculated quite similarly the potential energy loss of single photons until the shell radius D. He took the same basis, the local differential Poisson equation. He differentiated it by dt. So he got the Momentum (product of one small mass with its velocity v) instead, with a first result "2πlG2LD" = 4πG*lLD (see there) similar to -4πG*M above. Supposing that gravity waves have the velocity of light c, he used the theory of the retarded potentials. Taking velocity of the light v = c with Planck mass m = h $\nu \$ /c² he got his approximation for redshifts of photons and got: “Light travelling a distance L then would lose the momentum... = l.4πfpDL/c² ". – And no serious scientist was able to contradict him until his death!

The Biblical Astronomer vol. 14, no 108, spring 2004, p.33 correctly cited: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe"; see letter to Dr. R. A. Millikan, dated 15 May, 1952: “Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us.” See also [25], even if all this should be a horror for any Big-Bang-fan (like you?).

To understand Zwicky you should read WIKI, part "gravity" in Gauss' theorem (Ostrogradsky's theorem, or Gauss-Ostrogradsky theorem) saying: “The sum of all sources minus the sum of all sinks within the surface of any Volume gives the net flow out of the considered region” (while all extern sources have no remaining effect); “applied to a gravitational field we get that the surface integral is -4πG times the mass inside, regardless of how the mass is distributed, and regardless of any masses outside”.

To understand the strange result, you should read (theory of distributed masses, see “2.2 The Poisson Equation of the Self-Gravity”, especially “2.3 Free-fall Time” within gas in [Star Formation, Kohji Tomisaka, National Astronomical Observatory Japan). Then should be clear what Zwicky really meant: The only acting inner forces of an extended ideal gas until a thought end of a universe are much higher than a neutron star! Please take the (Zwicky's!!!) distributed dark matter, more than all stars...

Nowhere I found from Zwicky himself no words like (as stupid as a never heard Big bang) "friction" nor that his photons got "tired", but the stubborn but genius "inventor of neutron stars" simply used the Einstein effect gravitational redshift that we see from our point of view.

Main problem is that even Hubble is perverted and all students must eat Big-Bang religion and that neither old Zwickys, Hubbles nor Einsteins or Plancks can defend themselves against perverted meanings of own theories - wfck 84.158.237.19 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The above comments...

...are a clear indication that this particular user is using Wikipedia as a soapbox which is strictly forbidden. Therefore these contributions are removed from Wikipedia. Please direct further inquiries to the dispute resolution process. Thank you. --ScienceApologist 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for first reaction

but it shows again bare unfairness and crucial "old-fashioned physics"-deficits, as made understandable by us:

REMINDER: This is meant to understand old-fashioned physics! And this without defamation of the good old physicians. One single repeat for understanding of - by Einstein in 4 dim. used, genial but hardly understandable - good old Gauss: Any matter outside of a shell has no effect, only inner matter.

REMINDER: ... you should read at first the theory of distributed masses, see “2.2 The Poisson Equation of the Self-Gravity”, especially “2.3 Free-fall Time” within gas in [Star Formation, Kohji Tomisaka, National Astronomical Observatory Japan) to understand here only valid conventional physics!

Please take then the Gauss-ingegral only of (23 times more than all visible) distributed dark matter about an increasing shell. This is more than all stars and neutron stars and black-holes and look what is written correctly since ever in WIKI under divergence theorem, sect. "gravity" aubout it and use the calculated Gravitational redshift.

Calculate the universe as Zwicky did for his Tired light theory but please as cited in - F.Zwicky: "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space" - PNAS 1929; 15: 773-779. Please do not use any false interpretations of what he wrote.

REMINDER: THIS IS NOT YOUR THEORY BUT ZWICKY'S "TIRED LIGHT"-THEORY!!! - Sorry, sorry, sorry for crying so loudly!

REMINDER: Please answer here as fair and extended as you do it rather splendid in Big Bang discussions, but always considering HIS and nor YOUR view...

Of course an old-fashioned scientist would be helpful TO MAKE THE TEXT BETTER.

We have demanded Mediation by >demon [26] and discussion in [27].

wfck 84.158.211.179 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the following guidelines to understand why your contribution will continue to be reverted: WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT. Thanks: ScienceApologist 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanilla banana

This apparently meaningless and unrelated term was not explained anywhere on this page or the linked one or the comments of either.

I see from the comments that it is beloved term, but it can't remain without explanation. If it is a colloquial term for Lambda-CDM, then it needs explaining on the Lambda-CDM page.

Googling for: "vanilla banana" cosmology ...shows just 22 matches of which at least 13 are mirrors of this page.

Removed, replaced with "Lambda-CDM". DewiMorgan 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is neither meaningless nor unrelated, but Lambda-CDM is fine. Please don't get high-and-mighty about Google searches. In obscure subjects they can be highly misleading (as you just demonstrated). --ScienceApologist 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who might be interested in reading the page, the term genuinely is meaningless and unrelated: there is no earthly way they could establish meaning or relation for that term. It may have these properties for you, but then, if you already know the esoteric slang of the field, you won't be reading a Wikipedia introduction to it to learn anything, but rather with an eye to editing. Wikipedia isn't an "obscure" reference, so to use a term that only those in-the-know would understand, you either need to provide a definition (and preferably reference) for its use, or use the proper term. Otherwise you're just writing for yourself. Google (or any search engine with a large enough base) is not "misleading" in this area, but rather is the ideal thing to use to establish whether you are writing in English or in "makey-uppy slang for you and your mates". "Vanilla banana" falls very clearly into the category of "makey-uppy slang". DewiMorgan 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Newtonian cosmology??

Should Newtonian cosmology really be in the article as a separate section? My objection is: the section commits suicide by saying: nobody believes this!. Instead the text should be embedded somewhere as a natural introduction to the topic, I don't know where ... however. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph in section History maybe ... Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GR!??

What's that? Unexplained. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Abbr:s fix:d, fix:d abbr CMB 2!! Astron. lov:s TLA:s obv.:sly, b. Lay-m.n. isn.t. impr.ss.d!! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, a Swedish telltale: tala som folk!! – ("speak like humans!") Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The constant $\Lambda$ is called the cosmological constant. Since $\Lambda$ is constant, the energy conservation law is unaffected.

Dear ScienceApologist, please use (or learn?) physics! - EINSTEIN or SCHWARZSCHILD =POV?

Prof.Feynmans meaning about our common problem?

http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/feynman.htm “What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard P. Feynman Page 91: A fragment of a letter to wife written while attending a World Conference on Gravity. I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always:

• (1) completely un-understandable,
• (2) vague and indefinite,
• (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a
• (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot),
• (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or
• (6) just plain wrong.

There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!”

At first: Einstein is no POV!

http://nausikaa2.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/toc.x.cgi?dir=HUN315QN&step=thumb , p.137 “Einstein, Albert Ueber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt 1905” where you find an Einstein’s volume integration (= Gauss’ integration, s. Gauss' theorem) with R = infinite!

To understand our added section, basic Field theory and related original Einstein

WIKI-Lecture in Potential fields

The Potential of a field has a gradient; its interpretation is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient#Interpretations_of_the_gradient Einstein – like all scientists – normally utilizes an integration of a Potential field until the radius of an infinitesimal small or radius or a very huge Gauss’ shell, calculating e.g. with r=R or r=D.

WIKI-Lecture in Divergence as (infinitesimal) Gauss’ integral!

The normal(!) Divergence of this Gradient is such an (infinitesimal) small shell, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence#Physical_interpretation saying that the last “is the derivative of the net flow of the vector field across the surface of an infinitesimal small sphere relative to the volume of a sphere given by Divergence theorem” (the genial Gauss' theorem. It is called a local “charge” of a point. But this is only valid if the point “acts” in all directions equally.

Generalized Divergence

If the point not “acts” in all directions equally a GENERALIZED DIVERGENCE describes for each direction of a point a differently resulting elastic Tensor matrix. While in gum it is at least simple, gases may need a complete stress-energy-momentum tensor, incl. even Mach-oscillations, with solutions from Einstein’s GRT.

Gauss’ theorem is used for any shell

The most important lecture of the Gauss' theorem is the – for incredible – fact, that there exists no effect outside any shell!

Please realize tensors in Einstein’s GRT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_of_the_Einstein_field_equations

One can modify the EFE by introducing a term proportional to the metric:

The constant $\Lambda$ is called the cosmological constant. Since $\Lambda$ is constant, the energy conservation law is unaffected.

In Einstein should you see at first his Integration of GRT

http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/zogilib?fn=/permanent/einstein/sitzungsberichte/BGG54UCY/pageimg&pn=3 EINSTEIN, German original text p.690 (9) showing Einstein’s Gauss integration of the field of “retardierte Potentiale” with by EINSTEIN 1930 (again) mentioned result as written in Introduction b) for a spherical shell! http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/zogilib?fn=/permanent/einstein/sitzungsberichte/GEYDB1K1/pageimg&pn=1&ws=1.5

Others are found in http://einstein-annalen.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/related_texts/sitzungsberichte .

First GRT solutions (including added section) is the “inner Schwarzschild solution”)

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7910.html „Deeply interested in the other, stellar redshift test of his theory, Einstein supports astronomers engaged in experimental work on the issue.“

==== SCHWARZSCHILD FOUND A GENERAL SOLUTION BY GAUSS-INTEGRAL:==== http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=452327&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=5 : “...While on the Russian front during military service, he computed the first two exact solutions of the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity, one in static isotropic empty space surrounding a massive body (such as a "black hole"), and one inside a spherically symmetric body of constant density...”

Trivial remark for understanding: Instead of Schwarzschild’s “massive body” all equally distributed molecules (e.g. of a sun or interstellar gases) give mathematically of course the same - spherical symmetric - solution (cf. especially: “dark matter”).

BETTER (GERMAN TEXT): http://lisa.math.uni-hamburg.de/spag/ign/buch/koeln06.pdf ,p.142 “In Rußland schreibt er zwei Arbeiten über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes und einer inkompressiblen Flüssigkeitskugel nach Einsteins Theorie. Einstein legt diese Arbeiten der Akademie vor und 1916 werden sie veröffentlicht. Die erste dieser Arbeiten stellt die erste exakte Lösung von Einsteins Feldgleichungen dar, die zweite Arbeit enthält den später nach ihm benannten „Schwarzschild-Radius“, unter den man eine Masse konzentrieren muss, damit auch das Licht diese Masse nicht mehr verlassen kann, also die „Schwarzen Löcher“.

Same problem, see remark above!

GENERAL SOLUTIONS FULFILLING GRT:

 1. SECOND SCHWARZSCHILD SOLUTION HAS SINGULARITIES 
  a) “BLACK HOLE(S)” (a sink in 3D)
  b) OR ANOTHER SINGULARITY-SOLUTION THE BIG BANG (a source in 4D). 
 2. SCHWARZSCHILD'S “GAUSS-INTEGRATION” FOR EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED MASSES.
 3. THE GENERAL (“NORMAL”) SOLUTION OF GRT IS AN OSCILLATION WITHIN TWO EXTREMES: 
  a) A COMPRESSED GAS EXPLODES AS ONE EXTREME (MINIMUM SPACE), 
  b) THE OTHER EXTREME IS A HUGE UNIVERSE IMPLODING (BY GRAVITY).
 4. EACH SUPERPOSITION OF THOSE SPECIAL SOLUTIONS ARE SOLUTIONS OF GRT!

Serious WIKI-infos about added matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#The_equivalence_principle: “The first of the classical tests discussed above, the gravitational redshift, is a simple consequence of the Einstein equivalence principle and was predicted by Einstein in 1907. As such, it is not a test of general relativity in the same way as the post-Newtonian tests, because any theory of gravity obeying the equivalence principle should also incorporate the gravitational redshift. Nonetheless, confirming the existence of the effect was an important substantiation of relativistic gravity, since the absence of gravitational redshift would have strongly contradicted relativity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity#Acceleration_effects : „The first of these effects is the Gravitational redshifting of light. Under this effect, the frequency of light will decrease (shifting visible light towards the red end of the spectrum) as it moves to higher gravitational potentials (out of a gravity well). This is caused by an observer at a higher gravitational potential being accelerated (with respect to the local inertial frames of reference) away from the source of a beam of light as that light is moving towards that observer.“

Other sources as in text, using Gauss’ integrations

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604491v1 „Gravitational Field of Fractal Distribution of Particles Vasily E. Tarasov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119992, Russia “In this paper we consider the gravitational field of fractal distribution of particles. To describe fractal distribution, we use the fractional integrals. The fractional integrals are considered as approximations of integrals on fractals. Using the fractional generalization of the Gauss’s law, we consider the simple examples of the fields of homogeneous fractal distribution. The examples of gravitational moments for fractal distribution are considered. ... 2.3 Equation of Continuity for Fractal Distribution The change of mass inside a region W bounded by the surface S = ∂W is always equal to the flux of mass through this surface. This is known as the law of mass conservation or the equation of balance of mass [16]. If we denote by J(r, t) the flow density, then mass conservation is written... “

http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/fsl/00348244/articulos/RESF0505120007A.PDF , p.8.: Extract from: Einstein, Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, in: Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915, S. 844-847. „Nachdem Einstein gezeigt hatte, daß aufgrund des Äquivalenzprinzips die Gravitation sowohl eine Krümmung der Lichtstrahlen als auch eine Rotverschiebung des Spektrums bewirken müßte - vgl. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen, in: Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4(1907)”

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604492v1 : “Einstein and Jordan reconciled: a frame-invariant approach to scalar-tensor cosmology Riccardo Catena Deutsches Elektronen-Syncrotron DESY, 22603 Hamburg, Germany E-mail: catena@mail.desy.de Massimo Pietroni INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy E-mail: pietroni@pd.infn.it Luca Scarabello Dipartimento di Fisica Universit`a di Padova and INFN, Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, I-35131, Padova, Italy E-mail: luca.scarabello@pd.infn.it

Abstract. Scalar-Tensor theories of gravity can be formulated in different frames, most notably, the Einstein and the Jordan one. While some debate still persists in the literature on the physical status of the different frames, a frame transformation amounts to a change of units, and then should not affect physical results. We analyze the issue in a cosmological context. In particular, we define all the relevant observables (redshift, distances, cross-sections, ...) in terms of frame-independent quantities. Then, we give a frame-independent formulation of the Boltzmann equation, and outline its use in relevant examples such as particle freeze-out and the evolution of the CMB photon distribution function. Finally, we derive the gravitational equations for the frame-independent quantities at first order in perturbation theory. From a practical point of view, the present approach allows the simultaneous implementation of the good aspects of the two frames in a clear and straightforward way”

http://www.rafoeg.de/20,Dokumentenarchiv/10,Personenbezogenes_Archiv/,Mallove_Eugene/mallove1.pdf , p.36, 37: „CONCERNING MAXWELL'S THEORY ...sure that Einstein is right in turning away from the aether notion, that you accept his viewpoint, rather than respecting the memory of so many great 19th century physicists by reviewing their efforts constructively and taken account of today’s knowledge of the fluid crystal? Let us get back to the question of that lateral vibration of propagating electromagnetic waves. Believe it or not, there is a kind of unseen ‘snake’ wriggling along side-by-side with the wave we eventually sense. It is an electrical component of the aether, a dual displacement feature, and it not only keeps the aether in balance dynamically, but it preserves the continuity of the wave oscillations when minor impediments are encountered in its transit through space. Those impediments, however, take their toll on energy and, as my theoretical analysis shows, the effect is that the wave energy can be depleted in transit and with that the frequency. This accounts for what cosmologists call the redshift and interpret as the mutual recession of all stars in the universe, the phenomenon they say is the expansion of the universe.

Let us get back to the question of that lateral vibration of propagating electromagnetic waves. Believe it or not, there is a kind of unseen ‘snake’ wriggling along side-by-side with the wave we eventually sense. It is an electrical component of the aether, a dual displacement feature, and it not only keeps the aether in balance dynamically, but it preserves the continuity of the wave oscillations when minor impediments are encountered in its transit through space...”

Known problems of old letters (not only Einstein’s)

see http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/fopl/1998/00000011/00000004/00414465?crawler=true “Authors: Janssen M.1; Schulmann R.1 Source: Foundations of Physics Letters, Volume 11, Number 4, August 1998 , pp. 379-389(11), Publisher: Springer

Abstract: In a recent article in this journal a hitherto unknown two-page Einstein autograph manuscript was presented, and it was suggested that this manuscript dates from November 1915. We argue that the manuscript cannot predate early 1918. We also offer a speculative positive identification of the manuscript. These two pages may be lecture notes for a course on general relativity held in Zurich in 1919.” http://members.wavenet.at/arg/Wpdf/SB2008.pdf “III. Die Krümmung des Raums wird durch Einbettung von Flächen in einen höherdimensionalen Raum erklärt. Der Vorteil dieser Methode liegt darin, dass man alle Werkzeuge der Differenzialgeometrie, wie die Sätze von Gauß und Codazzi verwenden kann, womit man neue Einsichten in die geometrische Struktur der Modelle gewinnen kann.”

+++ CONSISTENTLY BIG FAULTS: WIKI must revise nearly all HUBBLE pages! +++

Well known by experts, as written not only e.g. in [28] :

• VII. HUBBLE REJECTS THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE

...In the meantime Hubble's work with the American cosmologist Richard C. Tolman led to another way to answer the question. They looked at two simple models based on the assumption that red-shifts (a) are or (b) are not velocity shifts, and applied them to the observational data on the distribution of galaxies. For (a), the universe "is represented by a homogeneous expanding model obeying the relativistic laws of gravitation" while for (b), they used "a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that photons lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect..." This alternative kind of redshift was apparently inspired by the speculations of Fritz Zwicky and W. D. Macmillan, and was later called the "tired light" hypothesis.39 The conclusion of the Hubble-Tolman collaboration was that model (a) could be made to fit the data only by assuming a rather high curvature, high density and small size of the universe; it would imply that the "average" nebulae now observed emitted their light about 300 million years in the past, nearly comparable to the "time of cosmic expansion -- possibly of the order of 109 to 1010 years."36 Model (b) was more satisfactory.

• VIII. SHOULD SCIENTISTS BE CAUTIOUS?

... The persistence of the belief that Hubble advocated the expanding universe theory is puzzling, since his opposition to it was widely known in the astronomical community during his lifetime. A science journalist reported that the 1935 Hubble-Tolman analysis "which casts doubt on the reality of the expansion ... has come like a bombshell into the camp of the theorists and is providing a major topic of conversation among astronomers, cosmologists, mathematicians and other universe explorers."47 Several astronomers who knew Hubble, and historians who have examined the original sources, agree that he rejected the velocity interpretation of red-shifts and was sceptical about the reality of expansion.48 Yet this knowledge does not seem to have spread to the younger generation of astronomers and science writers.”

### Is this a shame? ###

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Non-standard_cosmology#Fixing_an_error_in_section_.22Early_GR_attempts.22

For a ScienceApologist no reference!?

Incredible discussion with user JIM showed what FEYNMAN meant (see above)?

User:Jim argued correctly!

“The problem is that it is not a true story but a popular legend only told among civilians who don't know the first thing about gravitation. The universe can't collapse due to the gravitational attraction since there is no such attraction in the real world (at least not according to Einstein's gravitation). Einstein knew that he doesn't need to worry about the gravitational attraction after proving that it does not exist, but the equations had been showing the collapse. It was something to worry about since they were supposed to reflect the physics. So he introduced the cosmological constant to fix the equations. Not to neutralize some imaginary force. Then, after he achieved equilibrium it turned out that the equilibrium is unstable if equations are in their simplest form. At this moment Einstein gave up fixing the equations saying that he stopped understanding his theory when the matematicians started to explain it. Then the applied mathematicians like MTW took over setting cosmological constant to zero for many decades. It produced equations desribing cycloidal universe, which turned out about 1998 to be not physics neither so the cosmological constant has been returned to Einstein's equations. To make the long story short I proposse to fix this section this way:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to fix his so far incomplete equations by adding to them a constant. The constant would come to be known later as the cosmological constant. It is a necessary part of Einstein's equations till today... User:Jim 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)”

Sorry, but showed ScienceApologist here a minimal knowledge of EINSTEIN or GRT?

Answering with evidently false words: “What you are proposing is not correct”... (and other nonsense! Showing that the author not know basic physics?)... User:ScienceApologist Einstein wrote clearly – Jim needed no then demanded lit., because well known by all good scientists – that gravity is no real force but a virtual force in 3D, in 4D a bare curvature of the universe.

Blind dedicated followers of fashion in one-way manner to Big bang?

An infinite set of general GRT-solutions

Except of above mentioned 2 SINGULAR SOLUTIONS of GRT (Schwarzschild’s black holes and “your” big bang), the most general normal GRT-solution is above mentioned oscillation.

Bare mathematics for physicians for me and you! - (APOLOGIZE “un-Science”?)

Integration of any differential field-equations implies each combination of the (GRT-) solutions as well! And: Each integration of a differential equation in one direction produces some free functions in all other directions. 84.158.250.112 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No original research

??????????????????????????????????

Mathematical definitions and their use (also by Einstein as linked) need no "original research" because well known and always used therefore by all skilled physics 84.158.228.9 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The material above and the related edit to the article appear to be original research. Here is a quote from WP:NOR

????????????????????????????????????

Please learn a bit physics of POTENTIAL FIELDS 84.158.228.9 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Wikipedia is not the place to publish personal critiques of accepted physics, even if you can cite sources for the various parts of your argument. --agr 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_potential#Calculating_the_scalar_potential

WIKI-Copy Calculating the scalar potential

Given a vector field E, its scalar potential can be calculated to be

$\phi (\mathbf {R_{0}} )={1 \over 4\pi }\int _{\tau }{\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} (\tau ) \over \|\mathbf {R} (\tau )-\mathbf {R_{0}} \|}\,d\tau$

where τ is volume. Then, if E is irrotational (Conservative),

$\mathbf {E} =-\nabla \phi =-{1 \over 4\pi }\nabla \int _{\tau }{\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} (\tau ) \over \|\mathbf {R} (\tau )-\mathbf {R_{0}} \|}\,d\tau$.

This formula is known to be correct if E is continuous and vanishes asymptotically to zero towards infinity, decaying faster than 1/r and if the divergence of E likewise vanishes towards infinity, decaying faster than 1/r².

• REMARK: It uses one side of Gauss' theorem with expert's result in [29].

ORIGINAL ADDED: Einstein's own solution for an infinit radius

Already in 1995 Einstein, Albert Ueber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt 1905 http://nausikaa2.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/toc.x.cgi?dir=HUN315QN&step=thumb had indicated by such a calculation one problem of an infinite radius of the universe: Planck's black body radiation define all limit of all GRT calculations.

Einstein himself indicated there, that Planck law itself gives the lowest possible radiation of 2.7°K. This means that not only Big bang Cosmic microwave background radiation gives that result, but each kind of physics has that black limit for photons.

There you can learn at least that such a POTENTIAL FIELD (here induced by gravity sources) is always(!!!) realized by a herin shown VOLUME INTEGRAL within either a GAUSS' SHELL of all charges (sources and sinks) OR by (from each charge induced) infinitesimal field emission, calculated then ba the other given side of it.

All physiciss utilize(d) for such problems such volume intgrals

...also named GAUSS INGEGRAL - taking the given and thereby calculable side of the Gauss' Theorem: The result is the other side of it! All physicists calculate like this a POTENTIAL at ("of") a POINT! It is a volume integral (directly calculated as sum of “charges” OR as the sum of their equivalent infinitesimal small Gauss’ shells. The sum – named integral – of all infinitesimal charges vive a big shell with exactly same Gauss’ physics) to calculate the POTENTIAL OF A PONT. Those integrals are simply named GAUSS INTEGRAL. For simplicity Potential-Theory uses always such volume integration of Gauss' Theorem to calculate .

Please stop to name THEORY OF POTENTIALS, DEFINITIONS + EINSTEIN "POV"

Please try to realize at least that MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS and related original sources utilizing it

• are never POV
• AND never need any explication, at leastt not for a serious real expert!

Looking within the ORIGINAL SOURCES shows that such a POTENTIAL FIELD (here induced by gravity sources or gravity charges with inner SOURCES and SINKS within a Gauss’ shell of its inner VOLUME) is always(!!!) realized by an Integration of a volume of all charges (named sources and sinks) of within the volume of a shell OR by their related infinitesimal Gauss’ integration of its local field emission at a point P.

Sorry, do you really not know basic DEFINITIONS and THEOREMS?

This would show incompetence! Do you want to learn? Also basic physics and mathematics? Or are obviously incompetent people acting here?

Indeed, we have learnt as well from you a bit!

We will add now the link of WIKI section POTENTIAL-THEORY and link EINSTEIN directly in the article to show also for real experts quite directly: A farer point in a field of distributed positive gravity charges (mathematical sources) has directly a higher gravitational potential. This fulfils for statistically equal distributions quite banal: With a radius of a distance grows the attraction of photons and thereby the Gravitational redshift. This is valid within any thought shell. And it makes no difference if induced by interstellar gas (black matter) and/or real masses... 84.158.228.9 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)