Talk:Cosmology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question

--Avramov 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Isak Avramov avramov@ipc.bas.bg If we see now light emitted from a star 200 million years after the Big Bang, the light should have traveled about 13 billion years. This means that by the emitting time the radius of the universe cannot be less 13 billion light years! This is possible only if the expansion rate of the Universe exceeded the speed of light on average 65 times. How is this possible!

Moved article

I moved the cosmology article to physical cosmology and I'm working on improving the various pages linked. I did this

• because I thought the [physical cosmology] page needed to actually say something about cosmology (its history, etc), and not merely be a collection of links to various pages in Category:Cosmology
• because I think cosmology as a branch of metaphysics needs a seperate page, written by people who know about it. Making more than two millenia of cosmology as a philisophical topic a mere subsection in a physics article is unfair. Unfortunately, I'm only really qualified to improve the physics article, which I hope to do.

I should also note that I don't think having this page as merely a disambiguation page is the best idea for the long term. It would be nice to have a short article unifying the religious, philisophical and religious beliefs, because they really were all intertwined until the 20th century.

The comments below are taken from the original cosmology talk page, and are, I think, relevant. --Joke137 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Should this be moved to "List of cosmology related articles"? Or is it completely irrelevant bow due to the categories? Or should it be re-expanded to an article? --17:01, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

It is an unwritten article, mostly. Or the pre-cursor of Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Cosmology, compare Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Astronomy. --Pjacobi 20:37, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

---

Any notion that cosmology is limited to the branch of physics called 'cosmology' belies an ignorance of the millennia-long traditions of cosmology in religion and philosophy which in turn belies a lack of grounding in the liberal arts.

Please see these web pages: cosmology cosmogony

Probably, we will want separate articles, "cosmology (physics)" (if 'cosmology' is indeed the usual, most technical, hip, and up-to-date term for the study of the origins of the universe) and "cosmology (religion and philosophy)."

--Larry

Metaphysical cosmology

I revised the definition of metaphysical cosmology. I don't think it is simply an adjunct to religious cosmology and apologetics. Please see the article linked above, for more detail, as that is what I principally used to write the paragraph. --Joke137 22:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to suggest that metaphysical cosmology is merely an extention of religious cosmology, but the overlap is highly non-trivial. Philosophers often make statements about the cause/creator of the universe and it's purpose. Sometimes these arguments begin with the assumption of scriptual precepts, such as basically all of the major school of Islamic philosophy, and other times they are predicated only on natural observations (i.e. the universe exists therefore God exists). What distinguishes philosophical cosmology is the questions it asks and how it goes about answering them, but I don't believe you can ever draw a sharp line between religious / areligious and we need to find a way to describe this. Dragons flight 22:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think anyone studying metaphysical cosmology would think that it had anything to do with intelligent design, though. I think this is adequately covered in the article as it is.

Funny, I would argue that intelligent design is a particular example of a metaphysical point of view. To overly simplify a philosophical argument: The universe is too complex to be random -> universe is not random -> there exists a God. In the specific case of intelligent design as applied to evolution, one would substitute "biology" for "the universe", but the flow of the argument is basically identical. Of course ID is caught up in a political mess with a lot of proponents who basically assume there is a God and look for any way to advance there point of view, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument itself is basically proceding from natural observations and philosophical reasoning, in contrast to arguments from scriptual authority. I'm certainly not a believer in ID, but it strikes me as the quintessential modern example of someone using philosophical reasoning to argue that natural processes lead to religious conclusions. Dragons flight 23:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think the use of apologetics in the article was POV, but I understand how someone could interpret it in the colloquial way and get that impression.--Joke137 23:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

POV vandalism report of creationist Joke137 suppressing important scientific facts

earlier arguments

The wikipedia user Joke137 has vandalized the cosmology article by stating that the big bang was proven to be true (which is not the case) by the red shift, indicating that Joke137 is a biased creationist. Look at Joke137's edits. Joke137 has deleted my mention of the cumulative gravitational red shift, which is the fact that demonstrates that the red shift does not constitute evidence of a big bang. Joke137 has also falsely stated in his/her edits that general relativity is incompatible with a universe that does not change (on the whole). Joke137 has also falsely described physicists' previous belief of a universe that does not change on the whole as being the result of 'prejudice', rather than a-priori logic. What's next? -will Joke137 go so far as to delete the description of the gravitational red shift in the 'red shift' article itself?

I know that I'm putting bad ideas into his/her head, but it doesn't matter much, as this wikipedia anyone-can-edit system has proven itself a failure anyway. Rarely have I seen references as biased as the ones that I find in wikipedia. That is because malicious people are less hesitant to waste their time than are goodwilled people, so goodwilled people typically give up on these trivial battles faster than malicious people do.

This would be annoying, if it weren't so amusing. Why would a "biased creationist" "vandalize the cosmology article by stating that the big bang was proven to be true." I felt obliged to leave the NPOV tag on, but I think it is ridiculous. Please state your position clearly. --Joke137 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I also found that dichtomy entertaining. Certainly most creationists in the usual sense aren't pro-big bang. However, I think one might be able to make sense of the anon poster's comments if you assume he favors a static and timeless universe, i.e. one that has always existed without any act of creation. That is just a guess though. Dragons flight 15:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good argument. Discredit my statements by calling them 'amusing' and 'entertaining' so as to avoid their logic. Creationists use that tactic all the time, unlike people that are motivated by honest curiosity. At least you two were honest enough not to suppress the fact that the neutrality of this article is disputed. The statement that most creationists oppose the big bang hypothesis simply is not true. Most creationists, or at least a large portion of them, including LeMaitre and Hubble themselves (both devout christians, and LeMaitre was even a priest, facts that Joke137 edited out), believe that their god caused the big bang. If most scientists viewed the evidence and logic objectively, the big bang hypothesis would have never become popular. Instead of such objectivity, a-priori logic is ignored and empirical observations are grossly misinterpreted (by ignoring the gravitational red shift (yet an other fact that Joke137 suppressed), and the fact that interstellar molecules and ions create microwave background radiation), indicating that many christian/jewish/muslim scientists are abusing their scientific status by using it to implicitly promote creationism. --216.112.42.61

I think the point was there was no logic in your original statement to refute. At least now I know what bias you're alleging I have. It's interesting that you point this out, because just today I read Sean Carroll's article Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists. You'll notice that I didn't actually edit out that Lemaître was a priest, rather I changed to the more specific, and interesting, term Jesuit. I saw no reason to mention that Hubble was a Christian. Lots of people are Christians. That belongs on the Edwin Hubble page, but it is irrelevant in this context.

Correction from Pancake Croissant: Le Maitre was not a Jesuit priest, but a diocesan priest (secular priest) of Belgium who studied in a Jesuit secondary school.

"A first good theory of this changed picture came from the Belgian diocesan priest, Abbe Georges Le Maitre. It ended up being called the Big Bang Theory." http://magazine.loyola.edu/issue/august10/1493/50-years-with-the-jesuits

"After a classical education at a Jesuit secondary school (Collège du Sacré-Coeur, Charleroi), Lemaître began studying civil engineering at the Catholic University of Louvain at the age of 17." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.79.31 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the suppressing the gravitational redshift, I'm not really sure what you're alleging. All cosmological redshifts are "gravitational." Far from trying to suppress it, yesterday I added a page for the Pound-Rebka experiment because I'm interested in gravitational redshift experiments as tests of the equivalence principle, specifically tests of the local position invariance of fundamental physics. As I understood it, most people with a bone to pick with the big bang assert that redshifts are not gravitational, but rather come from peculiar velocities or tired light.

As for the microwave background, why don't you go and solve the Boltzmann equation to elegantly predict the exact anisotropy spectrum of the microwave background from an elegant six parameter model that explains it from scattering off interstellar molecules and ions?

Finally, may I suggest that you get an account and mark your entries on talk pages? Best, Joke137 23:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"I think the point was there was no logic in your original statement to refute." -There again is the tactic of discrediting my statements so as to avoid their [observable] logic. Still trying to make that deception work, eh? Why not confront my logic with logic? -unless you know that you have none (obviously). As for the other text: Only a few Jesuits are Jesuit priests. You contradict yourself by saying that most cosmologists are atheists, then saying that it is not important to note that Hubble was a devout christian. I see from your reply that you are either not knowledgeable in the field of astrophysics, or you are simply being deceptive again (that latter is more likely, due to the fact that Joke137 has demonstrated other advanced astrophysical knowledge), as big-bang believers attribute the omnipresent red shift to the DOPPLER red shift (due to all galaxies expanding, meaning that there was a big bang), and they tend to ignore or downplay the cumulative gravitational redshift (which, by the way, causes 'tired light'). Saying that universal expansion would cause a gravitational redshift makes no sense whatsoever. The statement that almost all cosmologists are atheists sounds like something that an atheist would say to try to make atheism seem much more popular than it is, though it may also be a deception created by creationists to popularize the big bang hypothesis among atheists. Even Steven Hawking himself (a big-bang believer, by the way) mentioned 'God' in the last sentence of his 'brief history of time'. Regardless of how many big-bang believers are creationists, it is clear that the big bang theory was first created by creationists (LeMaitre and Hubble), and modern big-bang proponents demonstrate a malicious blind bias toward the big bang hypothesis by ignoring facts (such as the cumulative gravitational red shift). --216.112.42.61

(It appears there was an edit conflict as I was adding this Joke137.)

The Doppler shift and gravitational redshift are complementary explanations of the same phenomenon. To the observer, it appears as though distant galaxies are receding: the explanation for this, according to general relativity, is that the amount of space between them is increasing. This is the Doppler shift explanation. An equally sensible explanation is that the photons feel as though they are climbing out of a gravitational potential well as the universe evolves from a more dense state to a less dense state. It is absurd to claim that a redshift due to the expansion of the universe – a manifestly gravitational effect – is not gravitational.

Your statement that "the cosmic background radiation was first popularly attributed to the big bang in the 1970s" is nonsense. This is the paper that announced the discovery of the cosmic microwave background:

• A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson, "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s," Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965), 419.

On the five pages before it, you'll find the theoretical interpretation as a relic of the big bang:

• R. H. Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson, "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation," Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965), 414.

The steady state universe was abandoned in the late sixties as a result of this.

In fact, it may be relevent to note that Alpher and Gamow predicted the CMB from the big bang model in 1948, in a paper that also has Bethe's name on it (Bethe didn't contribute to the paper, but Gamow liked 'Alpher, Bethe and Gamow' as authors) [1] WilyD

I have no response to the discussion of religion and cosmology. If you choose to believe that I am trying to covertly advance a religious agenda by describing the science behind the big bang, then so be it. Let me point out, though, that many physicists, Einstein included, invoke God in an abstract way as a sort of shorthand for the genius of physical laws (i.e. the fact that mathematics is such a good tool for describing the universe, when there doesn't seem to be any obvious, a priori reason it should work at all).

Finally may I suggest, again, that if you think an alternative explanation for the CMB, such as the scattering of starlight from the intergalactic medium, is correct, then you go and calculate the anisotropy spectrum anywhere near as well as big bang advocates have? Or at least prove that it has a thermal black body spectrum? And let me get on with the work of improving cosmology pages on wikipedia? Best, Joke137.

So many statements. I can't reply to them all at once, so I'll reply piecemeal. "Your statement that 'the cosmic background radiation was first popularly attributed to the big bang in the 1970s' is nonsense." -I got that from the wikipedia article of microwave background radiation; it's not even MY statement, and why would anyone make such a statement if it were not true? The operative word is 'popularly'; Joke137 is falsely portraying the meaning of the statement as having said 'originally' instead. Regarding the gravitational red shift: Joke137 is playing dumb again, due to ignoring the fact that BOTH the doppler red shift and the gravitaional red shift have been proven to be true (the doppler red shift was proven by the observation of rotating stars). Boy you're sly. General relativity regards gravity as a bend in space, and therefore predicts that photons bend in the presence of a gravitational body; it does nothing to predict universal expansion. I see what you're saying though about the gravitational red shift being related to the big bang; you're saying that the gravitational red shift is not caused by the cumulative interaction with REAL gravitational fields, but by the intergalactic 'anti-gravity' that big bang believers made up. Okay then, the big-bang believers ignore the effect of cumulative 'classical' gravity (or whatever you call it, distinguished from antigravity), so that is what I'll edit-in unless you have any objections. Regarding mentions of 'God': God means god, not 'appreciation of mathematical elegance'; to say otherwise is ridiculous. Einstein was Jewish, so he may have been a creationist himself, which would explain why he created his 'fudge factor', which he intelligently portrayed as a mere mistake, rather than a clever set-up to promote creationism. The belief that a static universe must have exactly-balancing forces is ridiculous. As universal gravity strengthens, so too would the gravity-induced energy release that drives matter apart. Even a child can see that obvious fact, much less the genius Albert Einstein. Einstein's deception was perhaps the greatest act of playing dumb in history. Anyway, I'm getting tired of this. I'll probably just make the one last edit that I mentioned and then quit. --216.112.42.61

General relativity does indeed predict universal expansion (or contraction). Let us look at the Friedmann equation:

${\frac {\ddot {a}}{a}}=-{\frac {4\pi G}{3}}\left(\rho +3p\right)+{\frac {\Lambda }{3}}$,

where a is the scale factor, ρ is the density, p is the pressure and Λ is the cosmological constant. Matter has (positive) pressure much smaller than its energy density. If there is no cosmological constant, the equations are not compatible with a constant scale factor. If there is a cosmological constant precisely fine-tuned to make a stable universe, then the slightest inhomogeneity (such as a galaxy, which is a pretty big damn inhomogeneity) will locally upset the balance, and cause parts of the universe to start expanding and others to start contracting. There, it's an absolutely robust, irrefutable prediction of general relativity that every physicist knows. Even the steady state theory was expanding. In fact, Stephen Hawking proved, around the time that the CMB was being discovered, that a gravitational singularity is also a robust prediction of general relativity. This has nothing to do with "anti-gravity", whatever that is, or the cosmological constant.

Einstein was Jewish: culturally, only. Please see Albert Einstein. He also added the "fudge factor" to make a stable universe. Are you suggesting that he did this so he could be proved wrong for nebulous creationist purposes? So that the redshift would then be interpreted as evidence for an expanding universe? That is a strange theory.

Popularly/originally: I assumed the sentence meant in the popular press. It's not certain how to say when the interpretation became accepted by physicists, since it was gradual, but my impression is that the debate was pretty much resolved by the end of the sixties.

Best, Joke137.

My IP signiture indicates that my reply is finished. The claim that Einstein was not a religious jew is a gross falsehood; Einstein had made MANY quotes that mentioned 'God'. Regarding the so-called steady state theory that you refer to: It is actually better called the continuous-creation theory, because it requires that matter is continually created -a ridiculous violation of the conservation of mass-energy. Big bang believers often compare their own nonsense hypothesis to the continuous-creation nonsense hypothesis, so as to make their own hypothesis not look so bad by comparison. I've seen that tactic several times before. "Matter has (positive) pressure much smaller than its energy density." -What a ridiculous statement; matter IS potential energy; if it is compacted enough by gravity, then it is fully converted into kinetic energy (photons) that is spread over vast distances and creates opposing particle pairs, the less stable of which decay. That is what quasars do. You DO know what a quasar is, don't you? Anyway, that fact makes your claim of a progressive and irreversible universal destabilization go out the window, not to mention universal expansion and contraction. Hey- isn't it ironic that Einstein himself, the person who knows better than anyone that mass and photons are interchangeable, was the one that created the cosmological deception that ignored that very fact? Talk about playing dumb. Oh by the way, if you want to argue that antimatter is necessary to turn matter into photons, the matter-versus-antimatter distinction is just an arbitrary distinction based on what baryons decay due to parity violation. The only real difference is charge, and when the meta-stable arrangement of up quarks and down quarks (as in the bose-einstein condensated neutrons of black holes) is broken, there is nothing left but photons. --216.112.42.61

Einstein was a Jew, and Einstein was, in some sense, religious but Einstein was not a religious Jew.

I'm getting pretty tired of this, and I am not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. The edits you are making to the article about "anti-gravity" are based on a misunderstanding of general relativity. The Friedmann equation,

$3\left({\frac {\dot {a}}{a}}\right)^{2}=\rho ,$

says that (expansion of universe) = (energy density). It's really quite simple, if the energy density of the universe is positive, as in a universe filled with matter or radiation, then the universe expands (or contracts). Every kindergartener knows that. If you refuse to accept these things that have been known for almost ninety years, and checked by generations of physics students, that is fine.

I will continue to revert your edits. If you would like to take steps under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, please do. –Joke137 15:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been away for a while, hence my lack of reply. "if the energy density of the universe is positive, as in a universe filled with matter or radiation, then the universe expands (or contracts)." What a ridiculous statement. Expands into what? It is based on the gross and illogical assumption that the universe is finite, a fact that even a kindergartener can see. It's rather comical how Joke137 projects the obviousness of his falsehood onto the corresponding ultra-obvious truth. Joke137's bias could not be more plain to see. -216.112.42.61

Anon, you're rather incoherent remarks are only wasting space on the talk page. Don't be astonished when eventual article space edits of you will be reverted, if you feel mistreated, O.K. you've already been advised to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Pjacobi 20:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ah- the tactic of deprecating my observably strongly-logical words as 'incoherent' and 'a waste of space', so as to prevent people from paying attention to them and seeing their truth. It looks like there is an other person on wikipedia that has blind faith in the big bang hypothesis and is bent on suppressing any facts that contradict it. -216.112.42.61

Can I humbly suggest that you two guys (you surely cannot be women) spend a little more time improving the article and a little less time banging heads. :) Abtract 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

later arguments

Guys, to varying degrees you are both missing the point. This is an encyclopedia. Our objective is not to find the truth but rather to report on what others believe to be true. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For scientific issues, such as physical cosmology, our job is to report on the majority and minority views within the scientific community allocating space to each in rough relation to the prominence of each theory. Joke137 is clearly working to describe the dominant scientific theory expressed by the Lambda-CDM model of the universe. If 216.112.42.61 wants to include a minority scientific point of view, they he should provide references to where such theories are published and who its adherents are so that its significance in comparison to the majority opinion can be established. If, as seems often to be the case, 216.112.42.61 wants to attack the foundations of cosmology on the grounds that its creators where biased by their religious views, they he likewises needs to provide sources for this point of view and establish that this is not original research. Dragons flight 00:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have not even edited this article to state that the universe is self-regulating (via quasars and particle-pair creation) and infinite in the dimensions of both space and time. All I did was thoroughly describe the basis of the big bang hypothesis and the assumptions that it (and the related interpretation of so-called evidence) makes. The thing is, when said basis is described thoroughly, people can see how very flimsy it is, which is why Joke137 has deleted it. --216.112.42.61

If all you are interested in is historical details, like person X was a priest and the CMB was attributed to the Big Bang in X year, then I don't think there would be a problem, and certainly not one justifying all the argumentation presented on this talk page so far. However, you have also tried to insert statements of the kind that assigning the Hubble shift to a doppler process ignores the "cumulative gravitational redshift". This is certainly a scientific question which deserves to be supported with evidence and sources. Besides which, your goal in writing an encyclopedia should not be to back door an argument against big bang cosmology. If the theory is flimsy then there should be prominent work stating that the theory is flimsy and their view should be represented. Dragons flight 01:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said that I would plainly state that the big bang hypothesis is flimsy (in the article, as distinguished from the talk page); I said that people will see that fact plainly for themselves when the basis of the big bang hypothesis is described thoroughly, as I have done in my edits. The fact that gravity (real gravity, as distinguished from anti-gravity) causes a red shift is a well-established fact that is not in dispute; big bang believers just choose to ignore it when they attribute the red shift to the doppler effect or to intergalactic antigravity. The statement that I have made arguments against the big bang theory in my article edits is simply a lie. The thorough basis of the big bang theory itself (which I have added, and which Joke137 has edited out) is it's own argument; it is not necessary to argue why the basis is flimsy, as people can see that for themselves when the basis (assumptions not excluded) is described thoroughly. Oh by the way, regarding Einstein's religious bias in his cosmological beliefs, he was actually quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame.". --216.112.42.61

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. It was not my intention to say that you had called the big bang theory flimsy (or anything like it) in the article. Rather, if I understand you correctly, you are hoping that people will percieve it as flimsy when given what you would describe as a more detailed understanding of its foundations. In responding to this I meant only to say that this is a strange approach to take in writing an encyclopedia article. Rather than relying upon others to reach the conclusion that the big bang is a weak theory based on a selection of facts, a typical encyclopedia writer would state this conclusion and the evidence both for and against it. So in short, what I intended to say is that it is weird that you are hoping that the readers will reach a conclusion with out ever stating that conclusion. Dragons flight

Now if you permit to ask the obvious question, what is cumulative gravitational redshift? Gravitational redshift I get, a photon climbing out of a gravitational well must give up energy and hence is redshifted. By contrast, a photon falling into a gravitational well gains energy and is blueshifted. This is well verified in the laboratory. But for this to explain all of the redshifts we see, then this would require that the farther away an object is, the farther down a gravitational potential it is. How would you propose for that to even be possible? Or do I misunderstand your meaning of cumulative? Dragons flight 04:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've been away again, as arguing here is not an efficient use of time. First, I must correct an earlier statement that I made. I said that Albert Einstein was a religious jew. I have since learned that he was an unaffiliated spiritual theist, who believed in the existence of a god, but not a human-like god that has an interest in human affairs (called a 'personal god'). I obviously would not state the conclusion that the big bang is flimsy because 1. it is unnecessary, and 2. People are likley to dispute it by calling it POV. Regarding the cumulative gravitational red shift, it is not based upon a ridiculous scenario of our area of space being coincidentally situated at the point of lowest gravity. It is due to tired light, the theory proposed by Fritz Zwicky (which, I might add, is rarely mentioned by big-bang believers as an opponent belief, as it is logically strong, in contrast to Hoyle's and Arp's ridiculous alternatives). The tired light theory does not attribute the loss of photonic energy to any specific cause, but gravity is the best explanation, as intergalactic matter would reflect light in other directions. I am saying that photons interact gravitationally with massive bodies, such that the inertia of the photons (it is known that photons have a small amount of inertia; that is what the solar sail is based on) resists the pull of the gravity, and in so doing transfers kinetic energy to the massive bodies, the lost energy resulting in decreased frequency. --216.112.42.61

RFC

As per the advice of an arbitrator, I have added this article talk page to the RFC page for public comments. --216.112.42.61

In that case, you should withdraw your RFA. Also, *please* learn to sign your comments -with four tildas thus: ~~~~ - and even better, get yourself an account. William M. Connolley 10:36:43, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

Artistic cosmology

What is this addition by 172.196.187.134 ? Are there any references? The main article, Artistic cosmology, does not exist, and the assertion that "this brand of art, as well as the physical concepts of light, color, and string vibration in relation to music, have influenced a new breed of cosmologists, especially string theorists to investigate these properties further" is false. –Joke137 15:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

removed npov

nothing npov about this article. [Inserted by 151.204.212.126 at 00:48, 18 July 2005. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)]

---

Agreed. 216.112.42.61 is trying to insert his own inappropriate POV into this article.

Normally, I would not remove an NPOV tag, but this is one of the more outragous ones. I know of no evidence that the creators of Big Band theory were creationists or did so for creationist reasons. Also, the actutal creators of the Big Band theory were Alpher and Gamow in the 1940's, not Einstein, Hubble, and Lemaître, who laid the foundations for it. (this comment was added by EMS)

-An other one of EMS's lies. Einstein (1916) created the assumption that the universe depends upon a balance of energy and gravity to be stable. Friedmann deduced from that that the universe is expanding, and LeMaitre in turn deduced from that that the universe has a beginning. Being as Friedmann's and LeMaitre's deductions are obvious, it was clearly Einstein that created the big bang hypothesis. Being as Einstein was a genius, it is impossible that he could have made his random, false, gross assumption honestly. He inserted a fudge factor into his equation and pretended to oppose universal expansion because of the obvious fact that it made his deception far more believable. Einstein later pretended to change his mind by calling his fudge factor a 'mistake'. Do not make a diatribe of me by discrediting my exposure of Einstein's clever deception as a diatribe. --216.112.42.61

Response to RfC

Looking at the article, it doesn't seem POV in relation to the statements about the big bang. However, if there is credible evidence that doesn't fit in with the theory, that information should be included in the article.

As to the question posed in the RfC—"Should the basis of the big bang hypothesis (and the assumptions that it makes, and the religious (and therefore creationist) nature of it's creators) be noted, or should that information be ommitted and the big bang hypothesis stated to be a proven truth?"—I have a few comments:

• The basis of the big bang should certainly be summarised in an article on cosmology, though an in depth analysis should be reserved for the big bang article itself.
• Proponents of the big bang theory are not necessarily so due to religious reasons, and it is incorrect to state so in the RfC.
• No scientific theory or fact ever becomes a "proven truth". As Steven Jay Gould said in Evolution as Fact and Theory:

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Therefore, it should not be presented as an incontrovertible truth, as that is incorrect, but if the theory is by far the consensus among the scientific community, it should be presented as such. --K. 02:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that all big-bang believers are creationists; I said that the people that CREATED the big bang hypothesis (Einstein, LeMaitre, and Hubble) were creationists. There are many physicists that do not buy the big bang hypothesis, and the vast majority of them are atheists, but so far as I know they do not constitute the majority. About 9 out of 10 americans believe that a god exists, and physicists are people too; they are not immune to human bias. Also, the big bang hypothesis has become so entrenched in the physics community by creationists and the clever trickery thereof that it has become the traditional mainstream dogma, such that many non-theists have come to support it as they support any traditional mainstream belief in their community. --216.112.42.61

Oops! Misunderstood your point. However, that those who developed the theory were creationists is not relevant unless there are credible sources that claim this was a determining factor in developing the theory. Of course, everyone is biased to some degree, but it isn't necessary to state a person's beliefs, morals and stances unless it has a known or claimed effect. I have never heard of the claim that a reason for the formulation of the theory was their religious background. But, if you have sources to show critics do claim that, then such claims should be included.

As for your statements about the "clever trickery" of creationists, it seems a little too conspiracy theory. I find it hard to believe that creationists (a minority among scientists) could so influence the scientific community; IMO you give "creationists" too much credit and insult the intelligence of the general community. --K. 04:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Creationism is related to theism. Of course most physicists don't subscribe to the stupid 'earth created in 6 days' scenario; many of them are unaffiliated spiritual theists. Even Steven Hawking refered to 'God' several times in his 'brief history of time', and Albert Einstein (the true creator of the big bang hypothesis) was a known unaffiliated theist. Georges LeMaitre, who first proposed the big bang hypothesis explicitley, was a catholic priest. The statement that spiritual belief might not effect scientific belief is entirely absurd; spiritual beliefs are rigid; no one would be idiotic enough to hold a scientific belief that contradicts their spiritual beliefs. --216.112.42.61

---

Big Bang is the established scientific padadigm of the day, with predictions made using it having recently been confirmed by WMAP and related studies. I see nothing overly religous about it. As for it (or its creators) being creationist: I think that allegation would hold more water if the age of the universe according to current theory didn't deviate from the timeline of the Bible by a factor a ~2 million! (Even in Hubble's time, this discrepancy was known.) It would also help if Einstein himself had not amended general relativity at one point attempting to avoid having an unstable universe.

I must also admit to being disturbed by this anonymous author's edits. I do not know that this "cummulative redshift" effect that he keeps refering to is, in spite of my having studied general relativity myself. Unless he can produce scolarly references to this, the possibility the this concept is original research needs to be considered. Indeed, the thesis that today cosmologists support Big Bang for religous reasons is the me a such a novel concept that I wonder if it is not original research itself, or perhaps just a strong personal bias on the part of this poster.

Finally, I have dealt with joke137 before. He has shown himself to knowledgable, helpful, and willing to bend in order to work with people when it is justified. On the equivalence principle article he helped steer it away from what I later realized my own overly biased viewpoint. I have no reason to believe that he would revert edits without a sound reason for doing so, or would suppress important and relevant facts. In this particular case, I see no reason to believe that he has done so. --EMS | Talk 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The only people that believe in the ridiculous 5,000-year-or-so age of earth are the bible fundamentalists. Albert Einstein was an unaffiliated theist, as many physicists are, and of the theist physicists that are affiliated, the vast majority do not adhere to rigid funadamentalism. Regardless of how many people believe in the big bang hypothesis due to theism, the gross assumptions that the big bang makes indicates that it's believers have blind faith in it, and blind faith itself is nearly as bad as theism. My description of the cumulative gravitational red shift is described in the 'later arguments' subsection of the Joke137 abuse section. It is the logically-strongest sub-theory of Fritz Zwicky's 'tired light' theory (created in 1929 to counter Hubble's interpretation of the red shift). --216.112.42.61

Request for summary

I see that an RfC has been posted. What exactly is it in this article that is the source of disagreemenet? It does not appear to me to be non-neutral, but the summary in the RfC is long. Please provide a short summary. Robert McClenon 04:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a party to this dispute, but I am very much on the side of Joke137. I will attempt to summarize if you do not mind, although I advise looking at the rest of this talk page and the edit history of 216.112.42.61 on this page.

216.112.42.61 is of the view that Big Bang is a biased theory by virute of its having been created and promoted by creationists, and is trying to edit this page to reflect that POV. This is not a mainstream POV and for me it is a novel thesis. 216.112.42.61 makes a number of statements to support his view, ranging from one of the discoverers of general relativity calling for an expanding universe being a preist (true), to Einstein being a devout Jew (partially true, as he was often made religous references but is not known to have devout in terms of regularly practicing his religion), to the cosmological redshift being due to "anti-gravity" (false, the Hubble expansion is not viewed in those terms by most physicists). Overall, when true, his points the points raised by 216.112.42.61 are trivial. Joke137 has spearheaded the discussions and has been most out front in refuting 216.112.42.61, which is why 216.112.42.61 has decided to issue an RfC against Joke137.

The removers of the NPOV tag have been an anonymous user and myself, as documented above. This is an article that almost leans over backwards to be inclusive, informative, and NPOV. To me, it is a model for others. I normally would leave an NPOV tag alone, but given that it is part of a campaign to include totally inappropriate material here, I feel compeled to remove it. --EMS | Talk 05:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The RFA and RFC appear to be without merit. I too support removing the tag. William M. Connolley 13:33:24, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

Ditto... I've got this on my watch list now (the anon's RfAr brought me here, so it backfired on him). DreamGuy 04:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The case against 216.112.42.61 and the NPOV tag

From the NPOV policy itself:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

As best I can tell, the viewpoint of 216.112.42.61 is held by such a minority, if not by 216.112.42.61 alone. As such, it is not relevant to Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on 216.112.42.61 to show that his viewpoint has a large enough level of support in either the scientific, religous, and/or scholarly communities or in popular culture to merit being mentioned. Even if this can be done, cause would need to be shown for why it must be mentioned here and not in the physical cosmology page itself.

Until and unless 216.112.42.61 can show that the above part of the NPOV policy is not relevant, I will oppose the insertion of the NPOV tag (as well as the insertion of the POV of 216.112.42.61), and call on others to do the same. --EMS | Talk 14:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There are many people, many of them scientists, that recognize the absurdities of the big bang hypothesis. Many of them have banded together to sign a petition to oppose the big bang hypothesis, which can be seen here: http://www.cosmologystatement.org . It is hardly a position held by a miniscule minority. --216.112.42.61

You are now starting to move this discussion to a place where you may be deserving of some respect. That letter does show that there is a notable current of opposition against Big Bang. One of the requirements for being notable is that you should be able to name someone notable in the field who supports that position, like Dr. Arp. So it is fair to say that there is a notable amount of opposition to Big Bang theory.

That said, I strongly point out to you that the signatories of that letter are only declaring their opposition to Big Band theory and calling for better treatment of the alternatives. Nowhere in that letter are sweeping claims of corrupt motives and immoral manipulations behind Big Band theory and its acceptance that you are making. So my opposition to your past edits, including the NPOV tag, remains.

But let us return to the matter of the general opposition to Big Bang instead of your own personal opinions on the matter. I am willing to see this opposition covered, given some constraints:

1. You may create an article on the subject, noting the relevant facts. However, there must be careful documentation of those facts. You will need links to the above letter and to any other published works. This must be the case against Big Bang as given by respected astronomers and others, not just your own take on the issue. A diatribe against Einstein, Hubble, and others like what you have tried to add here will only be VfD (votes for deletion) bait, if not just plain speedily deleted.
   • Note that an article on plasma cosmology already exists. This may be sufficient to document the opposition to Big Bang if that by far the primary theory supported by Big Band opponents.
2. Certain edits to the existing articles are permissible:
   • A short one-or-two-sentence reference to plasma cosmology and/or the new article to the opposition to Big Bang theory, with internal links to the appropriate articles, may be added to the Phsyical cosmology section of this article.
   • A short section on alternate theories may be added to the physical cosmology article, and maybe also to the Big Bang article. It is emphasized that their purpose would be to document the existance of the opposition and give people a chance to go elsewhere for more information. An outline of the opposition is fine, but a long detailed presentation belongs in the alternate articles.
3. A related point: Remember that the physical cosmology and Big Bang pages are primarily for documenting the existing theories as they are currently accepted. Your making wholesale edits to them is as appropriate as a creationist rewriting the evolution page.

If you are willing to properly document the opposition to Big Bang theory and to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own take on this issue, I am willing to at least tolerate your edits. I won't stop believing in Big Bang, but I will not keep thoughtful and informative content opposing it out of Wikipedia either. The later would be a violation of its purpose. However, in case you have not noticed, I have found your edits so far to be neither thoughtful or informative.

So I will give you a chance. I make no promises. I have my doubts that you can do anything more than another diatribe, but that web link does document professional opposition to Big Bang theory, and so I am willing to let you try to document it. However, you are warned that you must do a good, tasteful, thoguhtful job on it, or else it will be removed. --EMS | Talk 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So many things to reply to. I will reply incrementally and add my IP signature when finished. First, Halton Arp's alternative hypothesis is even more ridiculous than the big bang. He is a disgrace to the opponents of the big bang, just like Hoyle before him. The person that created the petition was Eric Lerner (a prominent physicist). Eric Lerner does not believe any specific alternative hypothesis so far as I know, but is certain that the big bang hypothesis is false.

"Nowhere in that letter are sweeping claims of corrupt motives and immoral manipulations behind Big Band theory and its acceptance that you are making." -That statement is a blatant lie. I hope that people other than EMS are reading this. The cosmology statement clearly states: "Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry." "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory."

The statement that plasma cosmology is the main opposition to the big bang hypothesis is false, as plasma cosmology says nothing about cause of the red shift or the CMB radiation. The tired light theory, created by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 is the most significant opposition to the big bang. Evidently, EMS is just making an other diatribe of the big bang opponents by falsely stating that they have nothing but plasma cosmology to oppose the big bang.

"You are now starting to move this discussion to a place where you may be deserving of some respect." "A diatribe against Einstein, Hubble, and others like what you have tried to add here will only be VfD (votes for deletion) bait, if not just plain speedily deleted. " "(paraphrased:) Short additions to less-important articles are permissable, and you must cite references." "I have found your edits so far to be neither thoughtful or informative. So I will give you a chance." -Ha Ha; What a laugh riot. -Making a false, libelous diatribe of myself and my statements (which anyone can see by looking back through the edits), and doing so in a guise of being considerate so as to make the deceptions appear more credible, also giving small, nearly-insubstantial concessions in the guise of being considerate, so as to make more convincing the deception that other edits should not be allowed. The particularly calculating nature of your deception shows your malice very clearly. You therefore obviously have no intention of allowing my thoughtful and informative edits. --216.112.42.61

So you respond with the above, with this RfA, and with this notification of the RfA. I take it that you are not interesting in documenting anything other than your own biases. So be it.

If you or anyone else should be willing to make responsible edits to document the opposition to Big Bang, I will support them. However, that will be based on my opinion, not yours. --EMS | Talk 15:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Dear 216.112.42.61,

Since you refuse to get an account, I will address my comments here rather than on your talk page which seems to be shared by multiple users, and which I doubt you even read. Despite the rules against no original research you have chosen Wikipedia as a medium for your assault on the big bang. The purpose of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to document mainstream thought and significant challenges, and the prevailing (public, scientific) attitude, not your feelings about a particular subject, however strong they might be. I agree that there are a small number of people, some of them well established scientists, who disagree with the big bang theory. There are a number of articles about this, including plasma cosmology, ambiplasma, Electric Universe concept, non-standard cosmology, and some pages, I'm sure, about tired light and intrinsic redshifts. However, the physical cosmology page is about the field of cosmology. While they should mention that some people dispute the prevailing big bang theory, the number of such people is small and it should be mentioned in passing. The big bang page also includes such a discussion. However, people who believe in non-standard cosmology – like it or not! – are at best a small fringe, and in my opinion they really don't have any place on this cosmology page.

Please read no personal attacks and drop your bad attitude. EMS wrote what is, in my opinion, a more than fair response. You repeatedly personally attacked him, calling him "deceptive", "malicious", "calculating", a "liar" and "libelous". In one edit. In the past, you've called me "deceptive", "sly", a "creationist" (confusingly, and without evidence), a "vandal", accused me of making "libelous" edits and playing "dumb." Stop it. Don't be a dick. Best, Joke137 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

-Oh, good argument. Discredit all of my obervations of you two as mere name-calling so that you and EMS can get away with whatever you want without being called on it. Joke137 has also called me amusing, and in the very message that I am replying to he/she calls me a dick, and he/she has also libelously accused me of basing my belief on 'strong personal feeling' (which is subjective) -A true double standard of who may speak badly of who. I abhore any sort of 'personal feeling' determining my belief; I purge myself of all such filth and use unbiased logical analysis to come to my conclusions, unlike the big bang believers. I know the feeling that tempts me and others to believe in the big bang and other crude baseless beliefs (as well as doing other things, like deceptively libeling people)- It is a crude, blind, hollow, disruptive feeling- the joy of disrupting truth, clarity, and order. I purge myself of every speck of that drive because it is bad for the aquisition of knowledge and the benefit of society, and I can only hope that you will do the same some time in the future. If I remember correctly, there are HUNDREDS of signatures on the anti-big-bang statement at http://www.cosmologystatement.org . ...I just checked: There are about 350 signers, most of them scientists. A small fringe, it is definitely not. --216.112.42.61

Sections

Religious, metaphysical, and esoteric seem linked. Perhaps these should go into a section, and they become subsections? Also, more history of cosmology would be nice, to link the 4 categories a bit more. There must be material in the relevant cosmology articles. Rd232 20:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

A related topic, Astrophysics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the nomination or comment on it.--Fenice 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Alpher-Bethe-Gamow article

I am trying to have the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory article deleted. People may want to look at this article and them post their opinion on its "votes for deletion" page. I see little redeeming value in this article, although if someone wants to expand and correct it, then I would support it's being moved to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. (However, even then the remaining redirect would be a joke.)

BTW - The creator and primary editor of this article is 216.112.42.61, which explains a lot about it. --EMS | Talk 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It's still there!! The article must have been viable! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Epistemological rupture

Hi, I would like to introduce the notion of "epistemological rupture" in the "Ptolemy/Copernicus" paragraph, since I'm starting an article about it, and it's known as the most famous epistemological rupture. Is that ok? Doublestein 09:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, be bold and go for it! ;-) — RDF ^talk 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

--Avramov 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Isak Avramov avramov@ipc.bas.bg If we see now light emitted from a star 200 million years after the Big Bang, the light should have traveled about 13 billion years. This means that by the emitting time the radius of the universe cannot be less 13 billion light years! This is possible only if the expansion rate of the Universe exceeded the speed of light on average 65 times. How is this possible!

Two Important men go unmentioned

Howard Robertson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Percy_Robertson

and Arthur Walker. The entry on Robertson concerns itself primarily with Robertson's tenure at CIA and having headed the "Robertson Panel" on Air Force research concerned with UFO's. Frankly, that artical is wool-headed. A search for Arthur Walker turned up nothing.

Quoting the online biography of Fred Hoyle:http://www.nap.edu/books/0309093139/html

"A rigorous approach to cosmological theory finally emerged in the mid-1930s. Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker, both mathematicians, produced a geometric description for a universe filled with dust. Crucially, they showed how to construct a global four-dimensional grid system that encompassed both space and cosmic time, and their approach was sufficiently general to be useful in a variety of different models of the universe. In effect, they created a mathematical tool kit that allowed cosmologists to explore different initial conditions for the universe to see how it would evolve."

I must also point out that Eddington played a crucial role in getting Cosmology started. Einstein did not set out to be a cosomologist.

70.116.68.198 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Don Granberry.

Perhaps you would be more interested in the article on physical cosmology, in which the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric is discussed. Unfortunately I don't know much about the contributions of Eddington, except to agree that they are important. Perhaps you could add something? –Joke 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Different cosmologies - which one first?

I was surprised to see other meanings of cosmology. Never heard of those. And I assume most people who look up 'cosmology' will expect a scientific article. So I changed the order to the one given in the intro; science, philosophy, esotericism, religion. I'd rather see physical cosmology as the primary target for the term 'cosmology' and a link from there to a disambiguation page (maybe this article), but that would require a discussion first. So any thoughts on that? As a point of argument, just have a look at 'what links here'. Many links that will have to be fixed if 'cosmology' doesn't link to the physics article. DirkvdM 17:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This used to be the location of the physical cosmology article and it was moved to the current format. It disagree with making physical cosmology the primary target as both religious and philosophical cosmologies are important (even though they tend to be important to disjoint sets of people). I'm not terribly surprised that in wikipedia, the scientific meaning might be more common, but that doesn't make it into the only significant meaning. For the record, the ordering: religious, philosophical, physical, was chosen to follow their historical development; and some time later esoteric was tacked on. I also disagree with placing religious cosmology last as religious views of creation have a very wide following. Dragons flight 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a 'chronological' ordering makes more sense. That edit was too hasty (and I' see you've already reverted it). But there still is the problem that most people looking for cosmology will be looking for the scientific meaning. Pointing out that it can mean more, as this article does, also makes sense. But many will be surprised to find this article and maybe think they've been looking for the wrong term. Just Google 'cosmology'. Most hits are about physics and even a religious site ([2]) presents the term more as a physics term.

I came here just to look for any views on the infinity of the universe. I was surprised there wasn't a single occurrence of 'finit' and was already on my way out (going to 'universe') when I noticed what this article is about and that I should follow the link to the 'physical cosmology' article. The problem is that I had to scroll down to see that. So maybe the article should be made shorter, more of a disambiguation page, briefly explaining the relation between the different meanings. Or maybe the four links should be placed in the intro as well. Actually, that's so much easier that I'll do that straight away. DirkvdM 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with placing physics first. Instead of Chronological I would place it by what the majority in the world believe in. The common element is physics across religions, philosophies etc. Also physical cosmology is not always at odds with religious or philosophical - they just talk in different 'planes'. There are religious people that place physical cosmology over religious but not the other way around. Just my POV. --Pranathi 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the majority of the world believes in, or has even heard of, the big bang. However, the majority of the world almost certainly believes in some religious cosmology or other (probably not the same one). –Joke 19:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article looks okay. The only reason that it might be confusing is because the ordering of the list in the first paragraph is different from the ordering of the sections in the article. WhiteC 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang isn't necessarily part of physical cosmology. It just happens to be a big part of the presently prevalent theories. But it is true that the thinking about the origin of the world and such long predates the scientific approach and that that is just one way of looking at things. But so is religion. If you think about these things what you're really doing is philosophy, so that should go first (religion is after all just a form of philosophy). But anyway, I have already solved my original problem by placing links to the major articles right at the top, conspicuously in bold type. With that, I am satisfied. DirkvdM 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What if

i was looking through this article and i saw the question 'why are we here?' well, what if we are an accident? what if we have no meaning in life? you know how if you leave a piece of bread on the table, it will mold, right? well, what if we are that mold? i know this might be a spam post, but it just popped in my mind cuz it fits with the Big Bang theory (universe started from a central point, just like mold does). OmniAngel 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorder arguments revisited

I think we need to reconsider our order for the various cosmologies. I have read the above discussion, and find that it doesn't seem to be substantively rationalized. In particular, while most people in the world probably have never heard of the "big bang", most people who actually use the term "cosmology" are, on the whole, people referring to physical cosmology. A quick check of google hits confirms this (and while I'm aware of the problem of google-hit-itis, in editorial decisions such as this, I think it can be a useful guide).

I do understand that there is a "chronological" argument for why one should put religious cosmologies first, but this is not editorially reasonable rationale. In particular, there is a different between "historical" religious cosmologies and "present-day" religious cosmology. The former could be described as a chronological precursor while the latter is correctly described as a contemporary to physical cosmology. The main article on the subject (and to some extent, the prose on this page) does not do a good job at distinguishing between the two and so we have a categorical problem in the article -- namely that the chronology doesn't fit for someone first learning about the subject and the epistemological progression is even worse (who ever heard of a progression like religious position-->scientific position-->metaphysical position-->esoteric position?).

One more point: since this page was formerly holding the physical cosmology content, wouldn't it make sense to put the reference to that page closer to the top?

--ScienceApologist 10:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Current order of the article

I rewrote a lot of the article to confrom to NPOV and factual accuracy and to address the concerns above. If someone wants to revert my reordering, please revert to this version. In particular I tried to address the following concerns:

• There were a lot of unsubstantiated arguments that religious cosmology relied on god/gods. This may or may not be true, but unless someone can verify it I think there current wording is less confrontational. More than that, there was prose that claimed that reconciling man's relationship with God was a fundamental part of religious cosmologies. Such a claim is extremely problematic as it borders on proselytizing.
• The cosmological argument and the Kalam cosmological argument are not technically relevant to this page. Consider including them on the metaphysical cosmology or even the religious cosmology page. The issue is that the arguments are not strictly regarding cosmology as a perspective -- they are not descriptive but rather proscriptive.
• Evolution was mentioned on the page. Why? Creationism is a reasonable link but evolution?
• The article as previously written claimed that all adherents to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism (that's billions of people) had the same Vedic cosmology. Obviously an exaggeration.
• The description of esoteric cosmology not only was repeated twice in this short article, it made unsubstantiated claims. I tried to tone down the POV while maintaining the factual information.

Please take my rewriting and edits with their appropriate grain of salt. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 11:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New Information Added

Hello there, I have added information about nucleosynthesis, an important aspect of physical cosmology as well as references to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (and COBE), due to the recent data gathered that complements the concepts contained in this article. You can see these changes at the top of the page. I have also corrected a wording of a misconception, namely changing "explosion" to "expansion." I am a physicist and in physics, the foundation of the big bang theory, there is a huge difference. Anyway, I just wanted to point out these changes. I have also made a reference to the work of physicist A.A.Friedman, a founder of what became the big bang theory, in the section which discusses the 1927 work of Lemaitre, thereby noting that both men were responsible for the idea of expansion. Thanks. C.Melton 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for your additions. I agree that expansion is the better term. I had never heard that the idea originates with Friedmann, do you have a reference? Please see my comments below! –Joke 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add a reference to and comments about the new Big Bang FLS cosmological model that is published in the book [GENERAL RELATIVISTIC COSMOLOGY BRINGING COSMOLOGY INTO CLEARER FOCUS][http: //www.lulu.com/content/1356952]. I am the author of the book. The FLS model corrects several problems that the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model has. First, for an expanding universe, the effective luminosity (radiant power)from a source that crosses the source-centered spherical surface at the observer is less than the intrinsic luminosity of the source. The FLRW model does not take the reduction in effective luminosity into account in the energy flux equation, thus, leading to the conclusion that luminosity distance is the actual distance to the source. When the effective luminosity is taken into account, the actual distance to a source is less than the luminosity distance. The Friedmann-Lemaitre metric is solved using time dilation leading to a new solution of the metric. The FLS model predicts that the geometry of space is flat, unbounded, expanding and coasting, not accelerating. The FLS model shows excellent agreement with the SNe Ia Hubble diagram of Adam Riess and the galaxy count surveys of the Durham Group. The FLS model sopports the Hubble constant work of the Sandage Consortium, with a mean Hubble constant of 56.96 and a mean age of the universal expansion of 17.16 billion years. - Sam Shanks --130.18.49.176 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I think the recent edits by User:Chris Melton have made the article too heavy on physical cosmology. I would prefer this page to equally represent each field, particularly given that Wikipedia already has about a zillion pages on physical cosmology. Also, the use of metaphysics as a synonym for religious cosmology is, I believe, incorrect. Next, the sentences

In contrast, the math and physics based disciplines of physical cosmology and astrophysics rely upon physical laws that are refined by testable hypotheses over long periods of time and based upon actual observation and experimentation rather than conjecture or reference to a religious text. Thus, religious or metaphysical cosmological models based upon conjecture or religious text tend to stay relatively unchanged over time while physical cosmological models, based upon observation and experimentation, become stronger over time.

sounds like an implicit criticism of the other methodologies to me, which isn't very NPOV. Last, is it really Friedmann who came up with the Big Bang? I had always heard it was Lemaître. I would like to see a reference. I'm going to revert all the changes, including User:ScienceApologist's addition of the cosmology template, but I am very much open to compromise. –Joke 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Friedman originally proposed the idea that became the Big Bang, and he did so a full 5 years before Lemaitre's ideas were popularized here is a short WP article on it. The reference to expansion is colloquially known as the Friedman-Lemaitre model, whereby scientists recognize the contributions of both men. This is a similar issue as that of the Newton-Liebniz debate. Liebniz originally founded what became calculus, although Newton is the one largely credited for it because he applied it to physics click here for more of the story. Here are references where you can obtain information on A.A.Friedman:

• Ferguson, Kitty (1991). Stephen Hawking: Quest For A Theory of Everything. Franklin Watts. ISBN 0553-29895-X.
• Friedman, A: Über die Krümmung des Raumes, Z. Phys. 10 (1922), 377-386. (English translation in: Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999), 1991-2000.)
• Friedmann, A: Über die Möglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krümmung des Raumes, Z. Phys. 21, (1924), 326-332. (English translation in: Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999), 2001-2008.)

I therefore plan to reinsert the comment about A.A.Friedman. As for my other comments I meant to specifically highlight that science is a process of improving models which describe physical phenomena whereas religion and philosophy are concerned with a typically unchanging paradigm. As a physicist, I recognize - not criticize - the difference and it is important to provide this factual information. I will reformulate another way of stating what I put in and I will then present it here before editing it in again. The information is an important follow-up to the preceeding paragraph and should be included there in some form; again, not as criticism but as a statement of the factual contrasts between processes. Thank you. C.Melton 02:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Friedmann was the discoverer of the FRW metric, but my understanding was that Lemaître was the first to interpret it as a cosmological solution. Discovering the solution and its interpretation are very different things! As for your other comments, if you can phrase them more neutrally, that might be better. The additions regarding COBE and nucleosynthesis, etc, I think are too much for this article. –Joke 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

After spending a bit of time looking at the physical cosmology page, I agree that the emphasis on models within physical cosmology should be placed in the physical cosmology article and not in the article for religious/ metaphysical/ philosophical cosmology. Having said that, I think we need to re-title this article to reflect its emphasis on non-physics based cosmology. As it stands, the title currently reflects only what is known as physical cosmology by the consensus of physicists in the world (I am one of them). Not to act on this issue would be misleading to the majority of individuals doing a search on Cosmology, expecting to find only information on physical cosmology (see references below), and instead finding information on all forms of science and non-science based cosmology. Any astrophysicist in the world will tell you that they study "cosmology" and not "physical cosmology." Since cosmology connotes "physical cosmology" in the modern lexicon, it is very important that this present article reflect that by having the article title changed, and the physical cosmology information removed. I have gone to college for years and I've studied philosophy and religion extensively, as well as astrophysics and physics so I understand the importance and value of both the physical and the metaphysical. I therefore feel we should separate the two because they are not equivalent; it's an apples and oranges problem and they should not be presented in the same article. Hence my proposal that we re-title the article to reflect the non-physics based information here and remove all physical cosmological references.

Perhaps then we should make the "Cosmology" page a disambiguation page, with links to physical cosmology, religious cosmology, etc. That would in my opinion be the fairest way to do this. There is a lot of great information to put in a philosophy and religious cosmological article, and including physical cosmology here is confusing and repetitive since a physical cosmology article already exists and since the two approaches to cosmology are not equivalent. I would like to put these changes into effect as soon as possible so other individuals will not be mislead.

References to the definition of cosmology in modern lexicon:

(from these you can see that the majority of entries are for physical cosmology, thus connoting that cosmology and physical cosmology are equivalent for the majority of individuals, in the modern lexicon)

• American Heritage Dictionary
• Webster's Dictionary
• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Oxford Dictionary

As you can see from these references, in modern-day language, cosmology and physical cosmology mean the same thing by an overwhelming majority, and since Wikipedia aims to reflect information thus, it is important to present information as it is currently held in a similar manner. We therefore need to get to work on this problem as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. C.Melton 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with all your points. However, I would like to point out that the page already is, in essence, a glorified disambiguation page. It has to do a little more than that, because it is essential to point out that the different kinds of cosmology are related but distinct aspects of the same train of thought, that is, enquiring about the origins and structure of the universe. But it shouldn't try to do too much more, because we want readers to go and look at the other pages. So I think the problem is that the page has grown in size, because editors find this page first and edit it, without thinking about which page is the appropriate one to work on. The solution, I think, is to pare it down a little, and move superfluous information off to the main articles for each discipline. –Joke 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We should therefore make it a strict disambiguation page, not a glorified disambiguation page, because - as my sources above illustrate - modern English language connotes Cosmology with physical cosmology. So unless we make the Cosmology page just physical cosmology I strongly feel that all of this other information should be removed so it is a disambiguation page. Your thoughts? C.Melton 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there. I didn't look until now – your sources illustrate no such thing! They two dictionaries at dictionary.com (American Heritage and WordNet) and Merriam-Webster both give the metaphysical definition priority. The only dictionary which gives it first place is the Oxford Compact. The full OED, which I checked, gives

The science or theory of the universe as an ordered whole, and of the general laws which govern it. Also, a particular account or system of the universe and its laws.

Note "science or theory." (I don't know about other dictionaries, but I think the OED ranks entries by first use and not by importance.) So the only reference which unambiguously supports your use is Britannica. Don't be so quick to make the assumption that the other uses are archaic: while I agree the predominant use is the scientific sense, the other senses have not disappeared. I don't see the problem with doing as I suggest: providing clear links so a reader can rapidly find all the sub-articles, but also briefly describing each topic and, most importantly, their historical interrelation. After all, the idea that any of these ideas were distinct at all is a 20th century invention. –Joke 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Note carefully that I connoted that the majority of entries were not of metaphysics but of physical cosmology. Of the four sources above, each has one or two entries. Count up in a column the number of references to actual science and those references to non-science. The science references are more in number than the non-science, and upon that statistical basis I made the conclusion that I did. In addition to that, the fact that I am a physicist - and I have studied astrophysics - means I've been in the scientific culture long enough to see that in the modern lexicon "Cosmology" connotes "Physical Cosmology." We're back to my original point now then. This page needs to be strictly disambig. As it currently stands, it does no justice to any of the metaphysical theories or the scientific models it attempts to present to the reader. C.Melton 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the page is not perfect, I would hate to see this become a strict disabmiguation page. We need to have a place where the different uses of cosmology are compared. I don't object to Chris' additions to the physical cosmology section and I'd like to see an article develop along the lines of the two references we have for this page (history of thought/philosophy of cosmology). --ScienceApologist 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually get a majority when I count, but OK. The physical cosmology content on this page is at the top. Shouldn't that be enough? Is it too much to ask readers to see the "Main article" link and click it? I don't think it does this page justice to duplicate more material than necessary from physical cosmology and big bang. The fact that you are a physicist, as far as I can tell, gives you a biased point of view – you are more likely to think that "physical cosmology" is the primary usage, because it is the primary usage you've heard. –Joke 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I propose we make this page strictly a disambig page or retitle it to reflect the metaphysical content; either way, I strongly feel that the physical cosmology content should be removed altogether - there's already a page for it and it should not be presented with metaphysical cosmology. The two are completely different processes, regardless whether or not their goals are the same. And unless the article is to be about a contrast between the two then this page needs to be disambig. As it currently stands, it does no justice to any of the forms of cosmology shown. What I'm trying to say is that more time needs to be spent by someone on the metaphysical - there's only a few paragraphs for each listed here, and the physical needs to be removed (perhaps providing only the link to the main physical cosmology article). On a personal note: as far as my pov goes, I'm not biased toward physical cosmology, because physics is only one of multiple degrees that I have. I only work as a physicist because it pays the bills better than my study in philosophy and religion have. I have studied all of these and so I am neutral where the topic of presentation is considered. All I'm saying is that I have a very good understanding of what each of these are. They are not the same and should therefore be on a disambig page. I won't change anything until this is a settled matter though because I don't want to put hours of work into properly researching and referencing a well-written article and then have someone revert it because they are pov. With your patience, I'm sure we can come to some sort of solution on this. Thanks. C.Melton 00:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that cosmology as a branch of physics and cosmology as a branch of metaphysics are not the same, but their goals are the same and their early histories are inseperable, and I think that is what should be reflected in the page. The article can be about the contrast between them, but it should also be about how they are historically related. As for the metaphysical cosmology, yes it needs to be improved. I'm not the person to do that. Anyways, I've asked the Philosophy and Physics WikiProjects to toss in their two cents, so perhaps they'll be able to move us beyond this impasse. Hopefully an improved article will come out of it, because I really don't think disambiguation is the way to go. –Joke 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You state, "Anyways, I've asked the Philosophy and Physics WikiProjects to toss in their two cents, so perhaps they'll be able to move us beyond this impasse. Hopefully an improved article will come out of it, because I really don't think disambiguation is the way to go," and really that's all I was looking for. I have no time during the week to add content or edit content to the bulk of many of these great subjects and unfortunately my work load is increasing. So, it's either weekend edits or finding others with the time and knowledge to do it. I was hoping with your Wiki experience you'd be able to suggest something like what you stated here. If the ball was tossed in their court, then I'm looking forward to seeing their contributions. The next long weekend I get (I work most Saturdays, as well as Mon-Fri) I would love to sit down and do some research to improve this article. Until then... thanks for the time you've put in on this discussion. Cheers, C.Melton 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This page should contain only cosmology as related to physics. All other forms of cosmology should be contained on sepperate pages accessable from the physics related cosmology page. David618 03:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? –Joke 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I already tried this discussion. See the above few exchanges. Cosmology as it relates to physics is on the Physical Cosmology page. After talking with Joke137, I see why this page has stayed the way it has. This page is supposed to be a contrast between the different forms of cosmology throughout history, presenting them in an NPOV manner. As it stands, Wiki has a great physical cosmology resource but the religious/metaphysical cosmology descriptions are sorely lacking. They have cultural merit and so should be included in keeping with NPOV. C.Melton 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. –Joke 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As a physicist who took anthropology classes in college, I feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people (often white, anglo-saxon) who are interested in religious cosmology without necessarily believing in it. Interest in HRR Tolkein and the cosmology of "Lord of the Rings" does not imply belief in the existence of middle-earth. (conversely: inflationary models do not disprove middle-earth, nor do they bear weight in literary analysis). So I'll disagree with David: anthropologists and Hindus and others have a right to claim "cosmology" as their own, as much a right as physicists. linas 06:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. –Joke 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Physical and Visionary Cosmology

Physical Cosmology's foundations will be modified by the transition from classical General Relativity to Unified Quantum Field Theory, as described at http://greenwdks.tripod.com/unifiedsummary.html . The simple field equations of unified quantum field theory lead to a cosmology in which the equations of the matter-dominated era are the familiar equations of Newtonian cosmology visualized as an expanding sphere of dust of uniform density, and provides solutions similar to the Einstein-DeSitter models. However, one must take the observational time-delay L/c into account when viewing galaxies at depth L, and this leads from a time-dependant solution for the measured Hubble constant of the form H(t) = (2/3)/t meters per second per meter, where t is the age of the universe, to the form H(t,L) = (2/3)/(t - L/c). Since in general v = HL, we then have c = H(t,L)L = (2/3)L/(t - L/c) at the limit of observation, so that we may solve for the limit of observational depth at L = (3/5)t = 8.1 billion light-years. For more details on this, see http://engine.freewebsitehosting.com/redlimit.html. At this depth back in time, we see perfectly formed spiral and elliptical galaxies receeding from each other in all different directions at high velocity, hence a variety of colors is seen, all superimposed on a high-redshift factor due to the overall apparent approach of the expanding sphere's velocity to v=c. This is what is seen in the Hubble Deep Field.

Visionary Cosmology deals with the perception that the celestial sphere is a cohesive mythic object that signals to us in a grand visionary celestial projection. The mythic mind-mirror of the celestial sphere is composed of constellation mythos telling a story sub-illustrated by mythically imaging galaxies and mythically imaging nebulae in a thematically coherent way. This can be easily substantiated by a study of astrophotography in connection with the astrocartography of the constellations and the celestial sphere. In this connection the angular orientation of the mythically imaging nebulae is important. For instance, we see that the mythical vertical tapestry nebula NGC 2264 in Monoceros is parallel to the figure of Orion. For more on this topic, see http://greenwdks.tripod.com/orionsky.html .

- James A. Green, http://greenwdks.tripod.com/home.html , March 30, 2006. --JamesAGreen 02:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's revert

I see my edit was reverted. ScienceApologist, can you explain please? I'd like to find a wording that is acceptable. You can't talk about the current cosmological model without mentioning dark matter/energy. --Smithfarm 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Physical cosmology and the Big Bang articles of course both detail how dark matter and dark energy are important to the current model. The point of this article is to describe the various approaches to cosmology -- physical cosmology being only one of them. Dark matter and dark energy are phenomenological features of the universe but modern cosmology itself does not depend on their existence, rather it provides a context for them. In principle I do not object to their inclusion on this page, but it should be done from this perspective. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from front page:

As the Cosmology undergoes revision, one needs to integrate [Science of Philosophy,[Philosophy of Science],[Resource][consciousness],[Noble Cause],[Divine Nature] and [Harmony] Chris 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Urantia Book

Although the Urantia Book is the only single reference of cosmology, it does not have any connection or make reference to any of the definitive ideas put forth in the topic of estoterics described in this article. As such, it should not appear in this category among esoterics.

The Urantia Book is the only cosmology that incorporates science, religion and philosophy in total.

Another school of thought that spans religion and philosophy is Science of Mind, though there is little physical science incorporated there. In this regard, Science of Mind is like Yoga and has no place among cosmologies

Similarly, Kabbalah should not be considered a cosmology. It is a religous practice and belief system, somewhat esoteric, but who is to say anything more than it isn't mainstream Judaism.

I wonder if you really know what esoteric mysticism is and who included it in cosmology. Someone may have the idea that cosmology and esoterica are related -- they are not. Cosmos is another word for universal, not weird. Mysticism and esoteric are combining thoughts but they do not cross with cosmology (both are contained by philosphy).

Due to its scope, few thoughts encompass the entire cosmos and only one of those depicts the unifying order of the expansive universal scale in English; there are few singular studies of the cosmos and none attain the scale of the Urantia Book; one need combine several disciplines to cover the cosmos -- that is, unless one need only a big bang to be one's umbrella thought -- cosmology for those without the sense to come in out of the rain.

Please sign with four tildes (~~~~)! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Physical cosmology's drive to avoid anthropomorphic explanations

A goal of many physical cosmologists right now is that they are trying to remove the dependency of the natural universe on a purely anthropomorphic argument. That we exist because the constants are so tuned, while plausible, is not a satisfactory explanation for some ( many books on this subtble and tricky subject see, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selections Effects in Science and Philosophy by Nick Bostrom ).

A one liner about the effort to remove anthropic explanations should be added to physcial cosmology; indeed, this is a great difference between Science and Philosophy!

Alejandr013 14:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical quotes in the development of cosmology

I moved some material from biblical cosmology that did not belong there but did seem to fit the general subject of the development of "cosmologies". This material was removed by another editor who pointed out that this sounded more like the development of physical cosmology. Unfortunately, the perspective that Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo among others were developing a cosmology is different from the sense that modern cosmologists refer to cosmology. This does seem to be the most appropriate article for this contribution, though it would be reasonable to spin-off a fork that would discuss the development of theories of the "universe" from Copernican Revolution to Modern Physical cosmology. This is an area that Wikipedia needs to expand its offerings, and so please do not remove the material without putting it somewhere else. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was grossly overbalancing this article with a scientific/physical view, so I dumped it in Historical development of physical cosmology. Feel free to develop that, rename it, or incorporate it elsewhere, but it doesn't belong here. Dragons flight 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Physical Cosmology Bar

Since this article is about cosmology in the broad sense, why is there the physical cosmology bar on the right side? Maybe we should take it out. Does anyone oppose to that? Hsxavier 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Brahmanda

I'm curious as to what this refers to exactly, what is meant by the text in the 'author' field, and why it is the 'first recorded cosmology'? As far as I can tell, "Brahmanda" is used to refer to the Brahmanda Purana, which is not only one of the later Puranas, but the Puranas are a relatively late addition to Hindu scripture. I know for a fact that there are cosmologies described in much older Puranas, and there may even be an explicit cosmological description in one of the Upanishads or Vedas. Or it may not even be that a Hindu cosmology is the first recorded cosmology?

I'm just curious as to the justification of this? What criteria must an idea meet to be considered a cosmology? Must it be spelled out explicitly, or can it be inferred over the course of the text? I have a pretty good understanding of ancient religious and philosophical texts, and I am happy to offer my assistance in the absence of a more qualified expert.

64.9.127.136 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Link from BBC

This article has been linked from the BBC website from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/cosmology/. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thales of Miletus

FORM & MATTER - Teh Dawn of Cosmology! "That from which is everything that exists (ἅπαντα τὰ ὄντα) and from which it first becomes (ἐξ οὗ γίγνεται πρῶτου) and into which it is rendered at last (εἰς ὃ φθείρεται τελευταῖον), its substance remaining under it (τῆς μὲν οὐσίας ὑπομενούσης), but transforming in qualities (τοῖς δὲ πάθεσι μεταβαλλούσης), that they say is the element (στοιχεῖον) and principle (ἀρχήν) of things that are."

The passage contains words from the theory of matter and form that were adopted by science with quite different meanings.

Classical thought, however, had proceeded only a little way along that path. Instead of referring to the person, Zeus, they talked about the great mind:

"Thales", says Cicero,[17] "assures that water is the principle of all things; and that God is that Mind which shaped and created all things from water."

The universal mind appears as a Roman belief in Virgil as well:

   "In the beginning, SPIRIT within (spiritus intus) strengthens Heaven and Earth,
   The watery fields, and the lucid globe of Luna, and then --
   Titan stars; and mind (mens) infused through the limbs
   Agitates the whole mass, and mixes itself with GREAT MATTER (magno corpore)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus (Tales23 (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Hypatia of Alexandria

Works Hypatia, painted by Charles William Mitchell in 1885.

Many of the works commonly attributed to Hypatia are believed to have been collaborative works with her father, Theon Alexandricus.

A partial list of specific accomplishments:

   * A commentary on the 13-volume Arithmetica by Diophantus[19]
   * Edited the third book of her father's commentary on Ptolemy's Almagest[20]
   * Edited her father's commentary on Euclid's Elements[21]
   * Edited a commentary that simplified Apollonius's Conics[22]
   * She wrote the text The Astronomical Canon[23]

Her contributions to science are reputed to include the charting of celestial bodies[5] and the invention of the hydrometer,[24] used to determine the relative density and gravity of liquids.

Her pupil Synesius wrote a letter defending her as the inventor of the astrolabe, although earlier astrolabes predate Hypatia's model by at least a century - and her father had gained fame for his treatise on the subject.[22]

Reference The Beauty of Reasoning: A Reexamination of Hypatia of Alexandra The contributions of Hypatia, the most famous woman mathematician of antiquity, must unfortunately be counted among that number. The lexicographers record that she produced commentaries on the algebra of Diophantus, the conics of Apollonius, as well as a work entitled The Astronomical Canon. Letters from her stu- dents document her ability to construct devices like the hydroscope (hydrometer) and the astrolabe. ...

Most significant

of all, however, are the letters and writings of Hypatia’s student, Synesius of Cyrene. Examination of these sources as well as consideration of the intellectual and cultural context in which Hypatia lived reveals at least three areas that call for revision of the traditional historiography presented above. ... Hypatia stood at the epicenter of these mighty social forces. Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, despised her because of her close friendship with the Roman governor, and because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identi- fied by the early Church with paganism. In great personal danger, she continued to teach and pub- lish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril’s parish- ioners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and, armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint. (Sagan, 1980, pp. 335-336). Unfortunately, Hypatia fares little better even in text- books of the history of mathematics. Burton (1985) records that Hypatia “took part in the last attempt to oppose the Christian religion. As a living symbol of the old culture, she was destined to be a pawn in a struggle for political mastery of Alexandria” (p. 242). Although he is careful to avoid a polemic against Cyril and rightly attributes Hypatia’s death to mob violence, he still insists on drawing Hypatia as a representative of paganism in opposition to an increasingly powerful Christianity. ... Hypatia “suffered such treatment on account of envy and because of her superior wisdom, especially in the area of astronomy; some say the envy was on the part of Cyril, while others claim that these events took place on account of the innate rashness and proclivity towards sedition among the Alexandrians” (quoted in Snyder, 1989, pp. 115-116). ... Consequently the contributions of Hypatia’s father Theon and the references to the titles of her work in the Suda are the only solid historical foundations for recon- structing Hypatia’s mathematical interests. Yet even these marginal sources are not without value. The extant work of Theon includes the first three books of his commentary on Ptolemy’s Almagest and his edition and revision of Euclid’s Elements (Burton, 1985; Loria, 1929). From her father, Hypatia would have learned the treasures of the first and second Alexandrian schools of mathematics, doubtless including a sound foundation in the geometry of Euclid. Some secondary sources specu- late that she, in fact, was a co-editor of the Elements (Alic, 1986). Through her study of Ptolemaic astronomy, Hypatia would have also been familiar with sexigesimal fractions and the involved mathematics of epicycles and chords of angles (Burton, 1985). Again, there exists speculation that Hypatia may have written parts of Theon’s commentary on the Almagest (Alic, 1986; Ogilvie, 1986). The Suda’s documentation that she wrote a volume entitled The Astro- nomical Canon may indicate that she furthered her father’s study and delved more deeply into these areas of math- ematics than he did. While some scholars believe The Astronomical Canon was simply a collection of astro- nomical tables, others consider it to have been a commen- tary on Ptolemy (Burton, 1985; Rist, 1965). Furthermore, the Suda’s account claims Hypatia excelled her father in astronomy (Richeson, 1940). In any case, her knowledge in these areas of mathematics would have been well grounded. In addition, the Suda’s note about the titles of Hypatia’s work is not without value, for while Hypatia’s com- mentaries have been lost, portions of the works upon which she expounded are still extant: the Conics of Apollonius and the Arithmetica of Diophantus. Both works treat representations of higher- order equations, but while Apollonius’s approach is geo- metric, Diophantus’s is algebraic. Thus Hypatia was familiar with both algebraic and geometric representations of higher-order equations. The Conics of Apollonius are considered among the most difficult mathematical works of antiquity. A native

Apollonius taught at the Museum in Alexandria in the third century B.C.E. Of the eight original books of the Conics, only the first four are preserved in Greek. Books Five through Seven are known only in Arabic translation, and only fragments of Book Eight remain (Toomer, 1972; Loria, 1929). Apollonius’s investigation of conics built on that of Euclid (now lost), and treated tangents to conics, asymptotes and foci, and the harmonic properties of conic sec- tions.

Conclusion We knew for long the mansion’s look And what we said of it became A part of what it is . . . Children, Still weaving budded aureoles, Will speak our speech and never know. Further conclusions about the mathematics of Hypatia must remain in the realm of conjecture. Like many other ancient mathematicians, a complete assessment of her contributions remains beyond historical determination. But the historian ought not to reduce her to symbol, the virginal emblem of a dying paganism. To insist on her historical particularity is to begin to recover a sense of the richness that was her life. Her contributions to a perduring tradition of Alexandrian philosophy and her exploration

and possible extension of the most advanced mathematics of antiquity deserve careful treatment; emblematic euhemerization will not suffice. But despite the caprice of history, there is a final, more positive word. For if Wallace Stevens’s (1967, p. 127) poetic reminder that the language of the past shapes the perception of future generations holds true for mathemati- cal language as well, then there remains a sense in which Hypatia’s contributions remain a significant part of our cultural deposit, despite the loss of her work and the frequent polemical use of her story. Indeed, whenever high school students struggle with algebraic representa- tions of conic sections and their intersections, they are, even without knowing it, speaking her language. It is time the historians begin to do so as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria Calculus (Latin, calculus, a small stone used for counting) is a branch of mathematics that includes the study of limits, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series, and constitutes a major part of modern university education. Historically, it has been referred to as "the calculus of infinitesimals", or "infinitesimal calculus". Most basically, calculus is the study of change, in the same way that geometry is the study of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics) http://math.coe.uga.edu/tme/v06n1/4whitfield.pdf (Tales23 (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Metaphysical cosmology

NOTE: the displayed image to the right, is not the original version, someone later added Urbi et Orbi - though the image is manipualted telling us a diffrent story now. Please use the original image as presentation on the wiki, the orig can be foudn when you access this particular image. (Tales23 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Our mistakes

To recognize our mistakes to the step for progress. http://www.cosmology.hu Theory of the correlation system. Emery F. Red (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this series of edits). Tobby72 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems, especially with this. Most of the references being added are wikilinks and even the one real citation here seems legit. Do you have specific issues with Jagged 85's contributions in this article or are you simple going everywhere this editor has contributed and posting warnings without checking? If it's the latter I'm not sure you are helping. Jojalozzo 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

comment on Armando Assis

If the Assis paper---as brand-new, never-cited paper in a fringe journal---belongs anywhere at all, it belongs at Non-standard_cosmology, not here. Please wait until we've got some sort of consensus on this paper at Talk:Cold Big Bang before reposting this paper. There's no rush! Please note that Assis's paper was only uploaded a few *weeks* ago, whereas everything else on this page (as well as Non-standard cosmology has been out there, accumulating verifiable comments from multiple reliable sources, for decades. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Carolingfield, please discuss the issue here. Limiting the discussion to the edit-summaries of your reverts is not appropriate. There are specific Wikipedia guidelines that are at issue, and I don't know what you mean by a "VALID" source. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:150.162.246.201

Hello anon user,

I see you are adding links to a Progress in Physics article to Cosmology ([3]) Please be aware that this particular article has generated some discussion on Wikipedia, not because it's some interesting cosmology, but because it appears to be a campaign to use misuse Wikipedia to promote an article that's failed to get notice through normal channels. Before attempting to post this again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and with the past discussion at Talk:Cold Big Bang, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63., and User_talk:Carolingfield. Before adding the link to any article, please engage in discussion on the talk page. (Talk:Cosmology for example.) Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you do not like the article via your engagement to delete it. But i do not think it is a misuse of wikipedia. You find this source in portuguese Wikipedia as well and nobody claims it is a misuse of wikipedia. Sorry, bit colleagues here claims it is important and people has the right of being informed about a published scientific paper in the english language. I will revert it.

Are you User:Carolingfield again? Please log in, it makes it easier to discuss.

• An anonymous personal recommendation from your "colleague" is (a) not verifiable and (b) not a reliable source. I have no idea who you or your colleagues are. If your colleague were to publish a paper in ApJ, that would be a reliable source.
• Wikipedia is not the place to inform people about stuff nobody has heard of; the guideline on that is WP:SOAP. You have a million other avenues for that. Wikipedia is a place to report on the consensus state of the field, by citing reliable sources (WP:RS) with appropriate weight WP:UNDUE.
• Other-language Wikipedias are not reliable sources. (In this case, you added this link to pt.wikipedia.com yourself.) You are welcome to use other wikipedias to help find WP:RS reliable sources.
• I doubt you will find reliable sources. I looked for them myself, there are none. This is a few-week-old article, by an author with no cosmology credentials, cited by no one, in a crappy fringe journal that no one reads.
• Please stop talking about your opinions about the article's importance---please demonstrate its importance according to the guidelines.

Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not Carolingfild. I thought the english version of the pt version should be valuable. I will not discuss the merit of the content in the source, nor the adjectives you raised. I did not contribute to the pt version, i found the content there by myself. I will not be concerned to be within a war against you since i do have a lot of things to do. I simply do not think as you, but you have the righth to think different from me. If wikipedia is not a reliable source, is your personal opinion i strongly disagree, Tell this to zilions of wiki users. I will revert it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.201 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello 150.162.246.201, the pt.wikipedia article was edited by User:150.162.246.163, and User:150.162.246.64 (AKA Carolingfield)---all new users, all from Assis's hometown, all doing nothing but adding Assis's paper to Wikis. Maybe you are all friends or students of his?

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source (for referencing purposes) for very specific reasons: WP:CIRCULAR

"Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources" 

• Progress in Physics is not a reliable source, by itself, for equally specific reasons: WP:SPS

"For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, 
newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, 
Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable 
as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable
when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by
reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources:
if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone
else will probably have done so."

• Have you read the actual reliable source guidelines? Please do. You need to address the specific question of what (if anything) establishes this single article as noteworthy. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 02:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Progress in Physics has been discussed in several threads on wikipedia and is not considered as a reliable journal. Too many of its articles push through fringe theories which are not accepted by the scientific community. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously a distinguish tag for Cosmetology?

I can’t even begin to conceive how the words cosmetology and cosmology can be confused. There are myriad English words that look alike or have minor differences (this is not one of them), and we don’t tag the articles. Anyhow if no issues are brought up, I will be bold and remove the tag later. Efiiamagus (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Right!  Done Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"First Non-Geocentric Model"???

In the section on Historical Cosmologies, the Remark next to the Pythagorean Universe (dated 390 B.C.) includes the comment, "This is the first known non-geocentric model of the Universe.[9]", yet the very first entry (dated 1900-1200 B.C.) says, the universe revolves "around the "cult-place of the deity" rather than the Earth,[7]". Isn't THAT non-geocentric???

Just asking. WesT (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro is broken

The intro is:

Cosmology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe or a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe .[1] Cosmologists study the universe as a whole: its birth, growth, shape, size and eventual fate[2]. Modern cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.

This seems badly confused. Cosmology may once have been metaphysics, but modern cosmology isn't; it most certainly isn't a branch of metaphysics William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Thepom (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Observation In the interest of objectivity please review the following in regard to the cosmology page. The cited quote in the first paragraph is both inaccurate in regard to its source, and the given link is incorrect. The correct link to the source article is - http://www.newscientist.com/info/in164-instant-expert-cosmology.html This link reads: "Cosmologists study the universe as a whole: its birth, growth, shape, size and eventual fate." Please note that the quote makes no reference to the theory of evolution nor is evolution a relevant part the definition of cosmology. I would like to suggest that the article on cosmology contains original research*.*The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] Please amend the page accordingly.

Observation

In the interest of objectivity please review the following in regard to the cosmology page. The cited quote in the first paragraph is both inaccurate in regard to its source, and the given link is incorrect. The correct link to the source article is - http://www.newscientist.com/info/in164-instant-expert-cosmology.html This link reads: "Cosmologists study the universe as a whole: its birth, growth, shape, size and eventual fate." Please note that the quote makes no reference to the theory of evolution nor is evolution a relevant part the definition of cosmology. I would like to suggest that the article on cosmology contains original research*.*The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] Please amend the page accordingly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepom (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 October 2012‎ (UTC)